PIC Nutrition Manual English Imperial

PIC® NUTRITION AND FEEDING
GUIDELINES
Welcome to the PIC® Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines
We are pleased to present the newest PIC® Nutrition and Feeding guidelines. Recommendations in these guidelines are
based on published research, PIC® internal research, research from universities and large-scale commercial experiments.
The guidelines are composed of four parts that lay out the fundamentals of our nutrition and feeding recommendations.
1. Summarizes our logic and principles of diet formulation

2. Explains how different nutritional components can fulfill those dietary formulation principles.
3. Details how basic nutrition programs vary depending on the production phase
4. Nutrient specification tables are available to optimize diets for the successful feeding of PIC® pigs.
These guidelines were developed to be globally applicable, regardless of geographical location, operation size, facilities or
technical equipment. The nutrient specifications have been validated in commercial environments and have been peer-
reviewed by nutritionists worldwide. At all times, please follow the best practices and appropriate standards for animal
health and welfare as outlined by the local governing body within your country of operation.
We hope these guidelines help you further improve the success of your operations. In case you have questions, please
reach out to your PIC® account team at any time.
Imperial Version 2021.03.04

i For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Section A: Principles and Decision Making in Diet Formulation........................................ A-1
Steps in Diet Formulation...............................................................................................A-2
The Economic Implications of Fixed Time vs. Fixed Weight............................................A-2
Strategies for Diet Formulation.......................................................................................A-3
Income Over Feed Cost...................................................................................................A-6
Income Over Total Cost...................................................................................................A-6
Seasonal Diet Formulation..............................................................................................A-7
Section B: Energy............................................................................................................... B-1
Ingredient Energy Value Importance..............................................................................B-3
Grow-Finish Diet Energy Response.................................................................................B-5
Economic Model for Optimum Energy Concentration....................................................B-7
Section C: Proteins and Amino Acids................................................................................. C-1
Essential and Nonessential Amino Acids........................................................................C-2
Expressing Amino Acid Requirements............................................................................C-2
Amino Acid Ratios...........................................................................................................C-3
Grow-Finish Pig Amino Acids Requirement Recent Advances........................................C-3
Biological and Economic Models for Optimum SID Lys Concentration...........................C-5
Section D: Macrominerals................................................................................................. D-1
Calcium and Phosphorus............................................................................................... D-2
Biological and Economic Models for Optimum Phosphorus Concentration.................. D-4
Sodium and Chloride requirements............................................................................... D-4
Section E: Trace Minerals and Vitamins............................................................................. E-1
Trace Minerals................................................................................................................. E-2
Vitamins.......................................................................................................................... E-3
Section F: Mature Boar.......................................................................................................F-1
Boar Feeding................................................................................................................... F-1
Feeding During Quarantine............................................................................................. F-2
Feeding When in Production.......................................................................................... F-2
Optimum Feeding Level for PIC® Boars........................................................................... F-3
Section G: Developing Gilt................................................................................................. G-1
Targets for Gilt Development......................................................................................... G-2
Gilt Feeding Recommendations..................................................................................... G-2
Section H: Gestating Gilt and Sow..................................................................................... H-1
Sow Body Condition Management................................................................................ H-2
Early-Gestation Feeding................................................................................................. H-5
Late-Gestation Feeding.................................................................................................. H-5
Peripartum Feeding....................................................................................................... H-8
Dynamic Feeding Program for PIC® Females................................................................. H-9
Section I: Lactating Sow...................................................................................................... I-1
Feeding Program.............................................................................................................. I-2
Factors Influencing Lactation Feed Intake........................................................................I-3
Amino Acid Requirements............................................................................................... I-3
Dynamic Feeding Program for PIC® Females...................................................................I-8
Section J: Weaned Sow....................................................................................................... J-1
Feed Program During the Wean-to-Estrus Interval..........................................................J-2
Section K: Nursery Pig....................................................................................................... K-1
Weaned Pig..................................................................................................................... K-2
Phase Feeding................................................................................................................. K-2
Phase 1 – Weaning to ~16 lbs.........................................................................................K-3
Phase 2 – ~16 to 25 lbs................................................................................................... K-3
Phase 3 – 25 to 50 lbs..................................................................................................... K-3
Other Considerations ..................................................................................................... K-4
Section L: Grow-Finish Pig..................................................................................................L-1
Formulating Grow-Finish Diets........................................................................................ L-1
Phase Feeding................................................................................................................. L-3
PIC® Adjusted Caloric Efficiency Calculator .................................................................... L-3
Section M: PIC® Nutrient Specifications for Mature Boars (As-Fed)................................ M-1
Section N: PIC® Nutrient Specifications for Developing Gilts (As-Fed)..............................N-1
Section O: PIC® Nutrient Specifications for Gestating Gilts and Sows (As Fed).................O-1
Section P: PIC® Nutrient Specifications for Lactating Gilts and Sows (As-Fed).................. P-1
Section Q: PIC® Nutrient Specifications for Prestart Pigs (As-Fed)....................................Q-1
Section R: PIC® Nutrient Specifications for Late Nursery and Finishing Gilts and Barrows (As-Fed)........R-1
Section S: Feeding PIC® Pigs within Special Topics.............................................................S-1
Section T: Bibliography.......................................................................................................T-1
Section U: Acknowledgements.......................................................................................... U-1
ii
iii For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Section A
Principles and Decision Making in Diet Formulation
PIC® genetics are selected with a focus on total economics to maximize profit for
the pork value chain. An adequate nutrition program is necessary to unlock the
genetic potential of PIC® pigs. We recognize multiple strategies can be successfully
implemented for diet formulation. Production systems worldwide typically determine
a balance of maximizing animal performance, minimizing cost of production, and
maximizing profitability when designing a nutrition program. Our goal at PIC® is to
help our customers be the most successful pork producers in the world. Since feed
is the largest production cost our goal is to provide key diet formulation principles
that can be used to optimize specific nutrition programs.
• In a space short system, when pigs are profitable, average daily gain has more value.
• In times of anticipated high profitability (such as summer in the US) implement strategies
to increase market weight.
• Inadequate amino acid concentration may limit the pigs’ response to energy.
• Income over feed cost is one of the most accurate ways to evaluate the feeding program.

For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
A-1
Steps in Diet Formulation
The first step in diet formulation is to determine the pigs standardized ileal digestible (SID) lysine (Lys) to calorie ratio
requirement. The second step is to define the most economical net energy (NE) concentration. The reason energy is
the second step - even though it represents the largest cost - is pigs may not fully respond to the energy if SID Lys is
not adequate. The third step is to define the other SID amino acid (AA) concentrations as a ratio to SID Lys. Finally, the
concentrations of macro minerals, trace minerals and vitamins are defined to achieve the nutrient requirements.
The Economic Implications of Fixed Time vs. Fixed Weight

A key concept to consider when formulating diets for a specific production system is to know if the system is marketing pigs
on a fixed time or a fixed weight basis:
• Fixed time, also known as space short, means the system does not have extra or flexible space in the production flow.
For example, when a finishing barn reaches 120 days of placement, the pigs are marketed even if the desired market
weight has not been reached, and the barn is emptied for the next group of pigs.
• Fixed weight, also known as space long, means the system has some flexible space available in the production flow. Pigs
can be left in the barn until they reach the optimum weight for the carcass value payment structure.
Understanding the difference between fixed time and fixed weight is important because it changes the value of growth
rate. When pigs are profitable, weight gain is more valuable in a fixed time system due to the fixed constraint on number
of growing days available. However, weight gain by a given nutritional or management strategy is less valuable in a fixed
weight system because pigs can stay in the barn at a fixed space cost (i.e., $0.11/pig/day) until they reach an optimum
weight. This assumes the cost of space is less than a nutritional or management intervention. Production systems will often
be on a fixed weight basis during winter when pigs are growing faster and on a fixed time basis during summer when pigs
are growing slower. These two scenarios represent a range of economic optimums and assessing both scenarios can be an
effective tool for evaluating economic sensitivity of dietary changes.
The concept of optimum nutrient concentrations to maximize profitability in a fixed time program relative to a fixed weight
program is illustrated in Figure A1. Tryptophan (Trp) to Lys ratio can have a significant impact on growth rate. In this
specific scenario, varying Trp to Lys ratio has a much larger economic impact on a fixed time system than a fixed weight
system simply because weight gain offers a greater marginal economic return compared to the fixed weight scenario. For
additional information on the value of alternative Trp to Lys ratios, please click here to download a free dynamic economic
calculator for the most economic Trp to Lys ratio specific to a production system.

A-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Figure A1. Standardized Ileal Digestible Trp:Lys Ratio for Economic Return on a Fixed Time and Fixed Weight Basis
(PIC® 337 × PIC®1050; Kansas State University and Ajinomoto Heartland, 2016)
Strategies for Diet Formulation

Many strategies have been used for diet formulation. Production systems will typically determine a balance of:
• Maximizing animal performance

- Average daily gain (ADG)
- Feed efficiency (F/G)
• Minimizing cost of production
- Feed cost per unit of gain
• Maximizing profitability
- Income over feed cost (IOFC)
- Income over feed and facility costs (IOFFC)
- Income over total cost (IOTC)
A summary showing the concept of these formulation strategies is shown in Figure A2. These results show the concentrations
of SID Lys to optimize the different strategies listed above. In this example, the SID Lys concentration to maximize profit is
greater than that to minimize cost. The economic optimum SID Lys concentration is dynamic and depends on the ingredient
and pig prices.

A-3
Figure A2. Example of Concentrations of Standardized Ileal Digestible (SID) Lys to Optimize Different Outcomes for PIC®
Pigs (45- to 55-lb pig; PIC® internal data)
Formulating for Maximum Performance

Nutrient concentrations are selected to achieve maximum performance. Financial return is not a consideration. The
optimal concentration of the nutrient could be different depending on the response criteria, an example being the SID Lys
concentration required to maximize ADG is likely lower than the concentration required to optimize F/G.
Formulating for Minimum Cost

Feed cost per lb of gain is calculated by multiplying F/G by the cost per lb of feed and, therefore, feed cost per lb of gain
considers F/G. The goal is to have the lowest cost per lb of gain. However, this approach does not consider any changes in
ADG, carcass merit, pig price, or the cost of extra days in the barn.
Feed cost per lb gain = (F/G x $ per lb of feed)
Formulating for Maximum Profit

Diets formulated for maximum profit consider financial implications under different scenarios, balancing the nutrients
needed for desired performance with dietary costs.
Income over feed cost (IOFC) considers the market price and the value of weight gain under a fixed time scenario:
IOFC = (market price per lb of live weight × weight gain) - (feed cost per lb gain × weight gain)
Income over feed and facility costs (IOFFC) adds facility cost to the IOFC equation and is more applicable in a fixed weight
scenario:
IOFFC = (market price per lb live weight × weight gain) - (feed cost per lb gain × weight gain) - (cost per
pig space × days in the phase)
Since feed and facility costs typically encompass the largest proportion of pig production cost and other costs are typically
considered fixed costs the IOFC is highly associated with profit. Therefore, IOFC or IOFFC is considered the best indicator
of influences on profitability.

Putting it All Together
Using feed cost per lb of gain alone generally leads to the conclusion to use lower-cost diets; however, that is often not
the correct decision to maximize net profit. Income over total cost considers the dilution effect of the extra gain over total
costs, providing a method to appreciate the impact of extra weight sold. For example, let’s assume the cost of the weaned
pig is $40. A production system with 266 lbs of gain from weaning to market results in a cost of $0.1504 per lb that will be
related to the cost from the weaned pig. However, if a given nutritional or management strategy increases the weight gain
to 270 lbs, the cost per lb related to that initial weaned pig cost will decrease to $0.1481 or 1.5% reduction in cost.
To calculate income over total cost per head on a live basis (IOTCL):
IOTCL = [(market price per lb live pig × market weight) - (feed cost per pig + other costs per pig + feeder pig cost)]
Or to calculate income over total cost per head on a carcass basis (IOTCC):
IOTCC = [(market price per lb carcass × market weight × % yield) - (feed cost per pig + other costs per
pig + feeder pig cost)]
Table A1 represent two scenarios - one with no added fat and the other with 3% added fat – and are utilized to illustrate
the strategies for diet formulation.
Table A1. Scenarios and Assumptions for a Comparison Between Minimizing Cost vs. Maximizing Profit per Pig
Scenario 1 Scenario 2a
Assumptions
Fixed time/no added fat diet Fixed time/ 3% added fat diet
ADG, lb 1.800 1.854
Feed/Gain 2.800 2.632
Days on feed 112 112
Diet cost, $/lbb 0.104 0.111
aAssuming each 1% added fat improves gain by 1% and F/G by 2%. This response can vary from system to system and by season.
bAssuming costs of soybean meal, corn, and choice white grease at $350/ton, $3.60/bu, and $0.31/lb, respectively.
Diet cost should include manufacturing and delivery, not just ingredient cost. This is a more accurate reflection of the total
cost of the feed consumed and the value of the performance differences.
Scenario 1 (Sc1; no added fat)

Weight gain = 112 days × 1.80 ADG = 201.6 lbs gain in the finishing
Feed cost per lb gain = 2.80 F/G × $0.104 feed cost/lb = $0.2912
Feed cost per pig = 201.6 lbs gain × $0.2912 feed cost/lb gain = $58.71
Scenario 2 (Sc2; 3% added fat)

Weight gain = 112 days x 1.854 ADG = 207.6 lbs gain in the finishing
Feed cost per lb gain = 2.632 F/G × $0.111 feed cost/lb = $0.2921
Feed cost per pig = 207.6 lbs gain × $0.2921 feed cost/lb = $60.65
Scenario 1 has slightly lower feed cost per lb of gain and it has the lowest feed cost per pig. However, in scenario 2 there
are more pounds produced per pig and this needs to be taken into consideration.

A-5
Income Over Feed Cost
Assumptions:
• Live pig price = $0.55/lb
IOFC (Sc1) = ($0.55 pig price/lb x 201.6 lbs gain) – ($58.71 feed cost per pig) = $52.17 per pig
IOFC (Sc2) = ($0.55 pig price/lb x 207.6 lbs gain) – ($60.65 feed cost per pig) = $53.53 per pig
The income over feed cost per pig in scenario 2 is $1.36 higher than scenario 1, thus, adding fat in this scenario is more
profitable.
Income Over Total Cost

Assumptions:
• Carcass yield = 74%

• Carcass price = $0.75/lb
• Feeder pig cost (50 lbs) = $55
• Weight gain = 201.6 lbs
• Other costs (facilities/transport/medicines/vaccines/slaughter) = $14.56 per pig
Calculations on a live basis:
IOTCL (Sc1) = [$0.55 x (50+201.6)] - ($58.71+$14.56+$55.0) = $10.11 per pig

IOTCL (Sc2) = [$0.55 x (50+207.6)] - ($60.65+$14.56+$55.0) = $11.47 per pig
Scenario 2 (3% added fat) is $1.36 per pig more profitable than scenario 1 (no added fat) in this market situation on a live
basis.
Calculations on a carcass basis:
IOTCC (Sc1) = [$0.75 x (50+201.6) x 0.74] - ($58.71+$14.56+$55.0) = $11.368 per pig

IOTCC (Sc2) = [$0.75 x (50+207.6) x 0.74] - ($60.65+$14.56+$55.0) = $12.758 per pig
Thus, scenario 2 (3% added fat) is $1.39 per pig more profitable than scenario 1 (no added fat) in this market situation on
a carcass basis.
Although cost was increased in scenario 2 with the inclusion of 3% fat in the diet, the increase in income resulted in an
increased IOFC and IOTC compared to scenario 1 with no added fat (Table A2).
Table A2. Absolute and Relative Economic Differences Between Scenarios 1 and 2
Differences (Scenario 2 – Scenario 1)
Assumptions
Absolute Relative (%)
Diet cost, $/lb 0.007 +6.7
Feed cost per pig, $/pig 1.94 +3.3
Feed cost per lb produced, $/lb 0.001 +0.3
IOFC, $/pig 1.36 +2.6
IOTC, $/pig (Live weight basis) 1.36 +13.5
IOTC, $/pig (Carcass basis) 1.39 +12.2

Overall, there are multiple strategies and approaches for diet formulation. It is important to use an approach that considers
the value of performance (i.e., ADG, F/G, yield) and the fixed time or fixed weight system. Keep in mind that the system
may be fixed time in some months and fixed weight in others. Therefore, using approaches such as income over feed
(and facility) costs or income over total cost on a carcass basis are suitable solutions to maximize the profitability of swine
operations.
Seasonal Diet Formulation

Historically, as pork supply in the US decreases in summer months, market hog prices increase (Figure A3). The reduction is
likely linked to lower farrowing rates from seasonal infertility in summer matings, reduced growth due to lower feed intake
during warmer months, and stronger market demands in summer. The months with the highest price may vary across the
globe as different regions are affected by climate changes and market demands. There will likely still be some price by
season variation.
Using the US as an example, in order to make the most out of the increased pig price during summer, the nutritionist and
production team need to focus proactively on strategies to increase market weight in the desired months. The application of
those strategies depends on the current nutrient concentrations being used in the production system. Common strategies
include, but are not limited to:
• Increased energy concentrations
• Increased amino acid concentrations
• Increased copper concentrations
• Use of ractopamine and/or other growth-promoting additives, if allowed
PIC® developed an Excel-based calendar tool to help nutritionists and producers identify dates to update each diet to get
the most out of the high pig price during the desired months, click here to access the tool.
Figure A3. US Seasonal Pork Supply and Price Indexes from 1980 to 2016 (adapted from EMI Analytics)

A-7
Section B
Energy
Dietary energy represents the biggest cost of any diet. Understanding dietary
energy throughout the different production phases on performance and economic
implications is important.
• There are different ways to describe dietary and ingredient energy values.
• Metabolizable and net energy being the most common.
• Accurate ingredient energy values estimates are needed to evaluate their relative value in
a diet properly.
• Pigs will increase feed intake to meet their energy needs assuming:
- The diet is not so low in energy or so high in fiber that they cannot fully compensate.
- Adequate feeding management, health status, and environmental conditions to allow
for unrestricted nutrient access.
• PIC® and Kansas State University developed a model to help determine the dietary energy
concentration that delivers the most income over feed cost. Pig price and the ingredient
cost are major model drivers.

B-1
Digestible energy (DE) is gross energy (GE) intake minus the heat of combustion of fecal material (Figure B1). Metabolizable
energy (ME) is DE minus the heat of combustion of urine and gas production. Gas production in pigs is generally ignored.
Net energy (NE) is ME minus the heat increment, which is the heat of digestion and nutrient metabolism. Net energy can
be further divided into NE for maintenance (NEm) and NE for production (NEp). Net energy for maintenance is the energy
needed to sustain life and maintain homeostasis (i.e., body temperature). Net energy for production is the energy used in
synthesis of protein, fat, fetal development, and milk production. Thus, NE should be the most accurate system to predict
growth performance (Nitikanchana et al., 2015).
Figure B1. Utilization of Dietary Energy by Pigs
Ingredients with high-fiber (i.e., distiller’s dried grains with solubles, wheat middlings) or high-protein (i.e., soybean meal)
generate greater heat increment during digestion (Figure B2). With high-fiber or high-protein, there is a greater difference
between ME and NE than ingredients with moderate fiber and protein concentrations. It is important to take into
consideration that heat increment can be used by the pigs as a source of heat when they are below their thermoneutral
zone. Thus, high-fiber and high-protein diets are not as detrimental during the winter season when feed intake is not
limited by hot weather or the extra heat production can be used by the pig to maintain body temperature.

B-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Heat increment
as % of ME
Fat 11%
Starch 18%
Protein 43%
Fiber 46%
Figure B2. Heat Increment as a Percentage of Metabolizable Energy (ME) for Pigs. Adapted from Noblet & Van Milgen
(2004) and Rijnen et al. (2003)
Ingredient Energy Value Importance

Nutrient loading values of ingredients used in formulation are important. It is critical to be consistent in the ingredient
database used. For example, using two different ingredient databases, such as National Research Council (NRC, 2012) and
Central Bureau for Livestock Feeding (CVB, 2008), can result in different concentrations of ME (3.3% difference), NE (4.2%
difference), and SID Lys (2.2% difference) for the same diet (Table B1). This comparison shows the importance of using a
consistent reference for energy values.
For ingredients not available in ingredient databases, energy values can be calculated using a variety of methods. These
methods include a comparison to ingredients with similar composition, titration studies, or calculations based on the
proximate analysis. Consider adjusting the energy of in-house ingredients based on their difference from reference
ingredients’ moisture. All energy values used in PIC®’s recommendations and tools use NRC (2012). Comparing your diet
energy to the same diet using NRC 2012 values can give you an idea of an energy adjustment you can use when using the
PIC® tools. When using PIC® Tools, we would not suggest giving energy or amino acid release values by enzymes.
Table B1. The Same Diets Formulated with Two Different Ingredient Databases (NRC 2012 vs. CVB 2008)
Item Percentage, %
Corn, yellow 70.99
Soybean meal, solv. extr., Crude Fiber < 4%, Crude Protein < 48% 25.19
Corn oil 1.00
Calcium carbonate 0.95
Monocalcium phosphate 0.78
Salt (NaCl) 0.37
L-Lys HCl 0.17
DL-Methionine 0.04
L-Threonine 0.02
Vitamin and trace mineral premix 0.50
Total, % 100
NRC, 2012 CVB, 2008
Metabolizable energy, kcal/lb 1516 1466
Net energy, kcal/lb 1141 1095
Standardized Ileal Digestible Lys, % 0.93 0.91

B-3
A corn-soybean meal-based diet and a high-fiber ingredient-based diet were formulated to have the same ME concentration
(Table B2). Note the diets have the same ME but the high fiber ingredient diet has 2.5% less NE. This suggests if the NE
concentration is more accurate, feed efficiency would be 2.5% poorer. Therefore, scenarios where high fiber ingredients
are priced into the diet, the NE differences affect the economic calculations but the comparison on an ME basis do not.
Table B2. Diets with Same Metabolizable Energy (ME) but Different Net Energy (NE) Using NRC (2012) Ingredient Values
Item Corn and soybean meal diet High fiber ingredient diet
Corn, yellow 70.99 37.48
Corn DDGS, < 4% Oil --- 30.00
Wheat middlings --- 19.00
Soybean Meal, solv. extr., Crude Fiber < 4%, Crude Protein < 48% 25.19 7.11
Corn oil 1.00 3.52
Calcium carbonate 0.95 1.28
Monocalcium phosphate 0.78 ---
Salt (NaCl) 0.37 0.39
L-Lys HCl 0.17 0.57
L-Threonine 0.02 0.10
L-Tryptophan --- 0.04
DL-Methionine 0.04 0.03
Vitamin and trace mineral premix 0.50 0.50
Total, % 100 100
Metabolizable energy, kcal/lb 1,516 1,516
Net energy, kcal/lb 1,141 1,112
Standardized Ileal Digestible Lys, % 0.93 0.93

Grow-Finish Diet Energy Response
Understanding how pigs respond to changing dietary energy concentration is essential to achieve the most profitable
dietary energy concentration. The impact of dietary energy concentration on performance of PIC®337 sired pigs was
determined (Table B3). Diets were balanced on a SID Lys:Mcal ME basis according to PIC® recommendations (Appendix A).
Minimum SID AA ratios were maintained in all diets.
Table B3. Effects of Energy Concentration on Growth Performance of Grow-Finish Pigsa

Dietary energy concentration
Item Low High
Initial weight, lb 48.0 48.1
Final weight, lb 288.3 288.1
Days on feed 123 119
Average daily gain, lb 1.97 2.03
Average daily feed intake, lb 5.30 4.99
Feed to gain ratio 2.69 2.45
Metabolizable energy (ME) intake per dayb 7.98 7.98
Net energy (NE) intake per dayb 5.86 6.08
Caloric efficiency, Mcal of ME/lb 4.00 3.87
Caloric efficiency, Mcal of NE/lb 2.95 2.95
aAdapted from PIC® Executive Summary 51.
bDietary energy concentrations were calculated assuming nutrient values from the NRC (2012) database.
Feeding a series of high-energy diets numerically resulted in a 3.1% improvement in average daily gain (ADG), a 6.1%
reduction in average daily feed intake (ADFI), and an improvement of 8.7% in feed efficiency. Daily ME intake was similar
between pigs fed different energy concentrations, whereas pigs fed low NE diets consumed approximately 3.5% less energy
than pigs fed high NE diets. This resulted in a 3.1% poorer caloric efficiency for pigs fed low energy diets on an ME basis, and
a similar caloric efficiency on a NE basis. Although FCR was different, pigs on the lower NE diets were not necessarily less
efficient in energy utilization, and the NE system appears to be more accurate compared to the ME system.
A more recent commercial trial measured the effects of a wide range of dietary NE concentration and dietary neutral
detergent fiber (NDF) on performance of 66 to 287 lbs grow-finish pigs (Lu et al.,2020). A total of 2,058 PIC® pigs (PIC®380
x Camborough®) were assigned to 1 of 7 dietary treatments, which contained increasing NE concentrations (0.96 to 1.24
Mcal/lb) in conjunction with decreasing dietary NDF concentrations (24.2 to 9.5%). More fibrous ingredients/less oil were
used in the lower energy diets, while more corn and oil were used in the higher energy diets. The 1.10 Mcal/lb treatment
was considered equivalent in energy to a corn-soybean meal-based diet.
Increasing dietary NE and reducing dietary fiber increased ADG, decreased ADFI, improved carcass F/G, and increased daily
NE intake (quadratic, P < 0.05; Figure B3). The lowest energy treatment had 14% less energy compared to the equivalent
of a corn-SBM diet. Pigs were only able to consume 9% more feed of the lowest energy treatment, which resulted in a
7% reduction in ADG. This trial’s results were not in agreement with Schinckel et al. (2012), who reported that pigs could
compensate for the decreased energy content of the diets by eating more. The difference between studies could be due to
the greater magnitude of NDF increment in the current trial (NDF increased by 11.3 vs. 4.4%).

B-5
Figure B3. Effects of Energy and Fiber Concentrations on Average Daily Feed Intake (ADFI), Average Daily Gain (ADG), and
Feed to Gain (F/G) of Grow-Finish Pigs

Removal rates and removal due to vices were numerically greater for pigs fed the lowest NE and highest NDF diets (Figure
B4). We hypothesize the greater vice prevalence was associated with inadequate nutrient access. It appears that the
pig increases ADFI when fed low energy diets to a point where gut capacity becomes limiting and nutrient intake per
day is reduced. We also speculated that higher fiber, lower energy, and lower bulk density diets take longer for the pig
to consume an equal amount of calories. Thus, when feeding lower energy and higher NDF diets, feeder space and pan
coverage may become more critical. Production personnel should be aware of diet changes so they can adjust feeder/
pen space and feeder adjustments to help pigs reach these higher intake levels. This study indicates that restricting feed
intake reduces pig performance. Laskoski (2019) reported increased ear and tail lesions with increasing number of pigs per
feeder hole. More information on feeder space and adjustment recommendations can be found in the PIC® Wean to Finish
Manual, click here.
Figure B4. Effects of Energy and Fiber Concentrations on Removal Rate and Prevalence of Abnormal Behaviors
Economic Model for Optimum Energy Concentration

Regression equations have been developed and validated to predict the growth rate and feed efficiency of grow-finish
pigs (Nitikanchana et al., 2015) and impact on carcass yield (Soto et al., 2019a) dependent on dietary NE fed. These
equations were used to model the optimum dietary NE content that yields the highest income over total cost per pig on
a live or carcass basis. PIC® and Kansas State University collaboratively developed a tool based on this model and farm-
specific inputs to yield the dietary energy concentration the highest economic benefit taking into consideration changing
production and economic scenarios. Click here to access this tool and instructions.

B-7
Section C
Proteins and Amino Acids
Proteins are made up of amino acids. Amino acids are essential for efficient growth
and reproduction. Pigs have specific amino acid requirements during different phases
of life.
• There are different ways to describe amino acids in swine diets.
• We believe standardized ileal digestible amino acids are the most accurate.
• The ideal protein concept is where other essential amino acids are typically supplied as
minimum ratios to dietary SID Lys content.
• The minimum ratios change with the different stages of production.
• Pigs require ~9 g of SID Lys to deposit 1 lb of body weight gain.
• As pigs become more feed efficient with genetic improvement, the amino acid
concentration of the diet needs to increase.
• Several research trials suggest grow-finish pig growth performance is reduced when
dietary crude protein concentrations are below 13%.
• The amino acid concentration that maximize growth performance may not be the most
cost effective. The SID Lys economic calculator can help in making that decision.

C-1
Essential and Nonessential Amino Acids
There are 20 amino acids that make up proteins. Amino acids are classified as dietary essential and nonessential (Table
C1). Diets are typically formulated to meet the pig’s essential amino acid requirements because pigs cannot synthesize
essential amino acids at the required rate. Nonessential amino acids can be synthesized by pigs provided there is enough
nitrogen in the diet. Some amino acids may be classified as conditionally essential, as they may be required only under
certain dietary and physiological conditions.
Table C1. Essential, Nonessential, and Conditionally Essential Amino Acids (Adapted from NRC, 2012)
Essential Nonessential Conditionally essential
Histidine Alanine Arginine
Isoleucine Asparagine Cysteine
Leucine Aspartate Glutamine
Lys Glutamate Proline
Methionine Glycine Tyrosine
Phenylalanine Serine
Threonine
Tryptophan
Valine
Although energy represents the major cost of any diet, a large portion of the response to energy depends on having
adequate amino acids. Before determining the most economical energy value, determine the amino acid requirements. To
obtain desired performance, all essential amino acids must meet the pig’s needs.
Expressing Amino Acid Requirements

Amino acids can be expressed in multiple ways:
• Total: represents all the amino acids the ingredient contains and are found in an amino acid assay. The downside is
the dramatic difference in amino acid digestibility between feedstuffs is not considered. Other methodologies have
been developed to account for digestibility differences:
- Bioavailability
is estimated by a method called “slope-ratio assay” and refers to the digestible plus post-absorptive utilization of
the amino acids at the tissue level. However, this method is the most expensive and the determined amino acids
availabilities are likely not additive in mixtures of feed ingredients (Gabert et al., 2001).
- Digestibility
can be expressed as total tract or ileal digestibility. The total tract digestibility estimate is based on the difference
between ingested and recovered amounts of amino acids from the feces. This may overestimate the digestibility
because of the microbial fermentation in the large intestine. In contrast, the ileal digestibility estimate is based on
the difference between the ingested and recovered amounts of amino acids from the ileal digesta, being a more
accurate estimate. The ileal digestibility can be further divided:
○ Apparent Ileal Digestibility (AID): does not account for endogenous amino acid losses.
○ Standardized Ileal Digestibility (SID): accounts for basal endogenous amino acid losses.
○ True Ileal Digestibility (TID): accounts for basal and specific endogenous amino acid losses.

C-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Typically, as the energy in the diet increases, daily feed intake is reduced while caloric intake is similar. Expressing amino
acids relative to dietary energy content (i.e. Lys to calorie ratio), adjusts the amino acid concentrations for different energy
concentrations (Chiba et al., 1991; De La Llata et al., 2001). As energy goes up, Lys goes up; as energy goes down, Lys goes
down; but the Lys to calorie ratio stays the same regardless of the energy of the diet. This adjustment ensures amino acids
are adjust based on changes in feed intake and growth rate due to changes in dietary energy density.
Amino Acid Ratios

The NRC (2012) defined essential amino acid requirements for each stage of production. Subsequent research-based
modifications have been made based on recent research using PIC® pigs. This manual reports the amino acid requirements
on a SID basis. The Lys requirements are expressed as SID Lys to energy ratio. Requirements for other essential amino acids
are normally expressed as minimums in relation to the SID Lys since Lys is most likely to be first limiting in the diet. Also, the
amino acid requirements we recommend were determined using NRC (2012) ingredient nutrient concentrations, including
metabolizable and net energy. The suggested minimum ratio of dietary amino acids for each phase is described in the PIC®
Nutrient Specification Tables.
Grow-Finish Pig Amino Acids Requirement Recent Advances

PIC® pigs’ lean gain and efficiency increases are being expressed in production systems globally. Adequate amino acid
supply is important for successful pig production. Feeding diets below the amino acid requirement will decrease protein
deposition and increase fat deposition (Main et al., 2008). Approximately 9 g of SID Lys is required to deposit 1 lb of body
weight gain (Goodband et al. 2014; Orlando et al., 2021). With an increase in growth rate and improved feed efficiency, it
is expected that the dietary Lys recommendation should be increased to match the pig’s needs.
An update of the meta-analysis that generated the PIC® recommendations for SID Lys in 2016 was conducted with a total
of 29 experiments performed between 2013 and 2020 under commercial conditions utilizing 48,338 pigs (Orlando et al.,
2021). The two most recent trials in this meta-analysis were conducted with the progeny of the top 15% high index sireline
boars from a PIC® elite farm. The models were developed for mixed-gender pigs, and used the PIC®337 growth curve to
estimate the recommendations for barrows and gilts. The SID Lys to calorie ratio curves were built for both the ME and
NE basis according to the feed ingredient composition in NRC (2012). The NE to ME ratio observed in the meta-analysis
data ranged from approximately 0.72 to 0.74. The PIC® 2020 SID Lys recommendations are based on the average for ADG
and feed efficiency (G:F), at which concentrations approximately 100% of maximum ADG and 99.4% of maximum G:F are
achieved. The updated biological requirements remained similar compared to the PIC® 2016 recommendations; however,
the requirement estimates have been adjusted for late nursery and late finishing phases (Figure C1).

C-3
Figure C1. Dietary Percentage SID Lys Recommendations for PIC® Pigs in 2016 and 2020 Based on the Energy Equivalent
to a Corn-Soybean Meal Diet
Below are the regression equations used to estimate the PIC® SID Lys to calorie ratio requirements based on gender and body weight:
SID Lys for Mixed Gender (Barrows and Gilts), g/Mcal of NE = 0.0000327185 × weight, lb² -
0.0214484253 × weight, lb + 6.0773690201.
SID Lys for Mixed Gender (Barrows and Gilts), g/Mcal of ME = 0.0000255654 × weight, lb² -
0.0157978368 × weight, lb + 4.4555073859.
SID Lys for Barrows if weight is < 88 lbs = the same SID Lys:Mcal of mixed gender;
SID Lys for Barrows if weight is > 88 lbs = g SID Lys:Mcal for mixed gender - [-0.0000000031 × (weight, lb
÷ 2.204622)⁴ + 0.0000013234 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)³ -0.0002087068 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)² +
0.0142221655 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622) - 0.3126825057] × g SID Lys:Mcal for mixed gender
SID Lys for Gilts if weight is < 88 lbs = the same SID Lys:Mcal of mixed gender;
SID Lys for Gilts if weight is > 88 lbs = g SID Lys:Mcal for mixed gender + [-0.0000000031 × (weight, lb ÷
2.204622)⁴ + 0.0000013234 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)³ -0.0002087068 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)² +
0.0142221655 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622) - 0.3126825057] × g SID Lys:Mcal for mixed gender
SID Lys for Boars if SID Lys for Barrows × [0.0023 x (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622) + 0.9644] is < SID Lys for Gilts = the same SID
Lys:Mcal of Gilts.
SID Lys for Boars if SID Lys for Barrows × [0.0023 x (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622) + 0.9644] is > SID Lys for Gilts = SID Lys for
Barrows × [0.0023 x (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622) + 0.9644]

Market weights are increasing worldwide, and with that, we need to understand the nutrient requirements of heavier pigs.
A commercial study with 990 pigs (PIC® 337 x Camborough®) housed in mixed-sex pens was conducted to determine the
SID Lys requirement of pigs weighing 286 to 330 lbs (Orlando et al., 2018). Results indicated the breakpoint for optimum
feed efficiency of late finishing pigs at 2.21 g SID Lys:Mcal ME. The Lys requirement does not have a dramatic decrease after
330 lbs of bodyweight, and data from this study were included in the PIC® 2020 meta-analysis which now more accurately
reflects the Lys recommendations at increased market weights.
Due to economic and environmental concerns, reduction of crude protein (CP) percentages by partially replacing the
amino acids from protein sources with feed grade amino acids is widely practiced globally. Although pigs do not have a
specific protein requirement, recent studies have shown that low crude protein can reduce pig performance. This is more
evident in late finishing pigs fed diets below 13% crude protein, even when adequate amino acid ratios are met (Tous et
al., 2014; Soto et al., 2019b). Several potential explanations have been investigated, such as deficiency of nonessential
amino acids or other nutrients provided by the protein source, crude protein source, soybean meal concentration, soy
isoflavone concentration, dietary electrolyte balance, choline, and potassium (Rojo, 2011; Ball et al., 2013; Rochell et
al., 2015; Mansilla et al., 2017; Thomas et al., 2018). Further research is needed to understand the cause of reduced
performance when pigs over 220 lbs of bodyweight are fed diets below 13% crude protein but with seemingly adequate
amino acid concentrations.
Biological and Economic Models for Optimum SID Lys Concentration

Genetic selection for increased growth and improved feed efficiency over the last decade prompted the need to re-evaluate
nutrient recommendations to achieve the pig’s genetic potential. Results from the previously mentioned meta-analysis
served as a basis for the development of a tool to estimate the SID Lys biological requirement for PIC® pigs under different
weight ranges.
Lys concentration has a large impact on diet cost. Depending on the economic scenario, the biological SID Lys concentration
to maximize growth rate may not result in maximum profitability. PIC® has developed an Excel-based tool to help users
determine the economics of current SID Lys concentrations being fed compared to the biological Lys requirement under
different financial situations. Click here to access these tools and instructions.

C-5
Section D
Macrominerals
Macrominerals are involved in many processes ranging from structural framework of

DNA and RNA to bone development, electrolyte balance, and growth performance.
Fine-tuning the macromineral concentrations in diet formulation is key to a well-
formulated diet. Macrominerals typically supplemented in most swine diets include
calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), sodium, and chloride.
• Common ways to describe phosphorus in swine diets are available phosphorus and
standardized total tract digestible phosphorus.
• Phosphorus recommendations have been updated for nursery, grow-finish, and gilt
development phases based on recent research under commercial conditions.
• Dietary Ca can be described as analyzed (proximate analysis) or total, which is the sum of
the analyzed Ca plus the Ca released by phytase.
• Dietary P concentration to maximize bone mineralization is greater than to maximize
growth.
• Excess Ca negatively impacts P utilization, particularly when P is limiting; therefore, a ratio
of Ca to P should be observed.
• The P concentrations that maximize growth for market pigs may not be the most cost
effective. PIC® and Kansas State University developed a tool to help in that decision.
• Sodium requirement is higher for nursery pigs than other stages of production.
D-1
Calcium and Phosphorus
Calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) are essential for lean tissue deposition, skeleton development and maintenance, and
many metabolic functions.
Phosphorus and calcium can be expressed in many ways:
• Analyzed: analyzed Ca and P represents all Ca and P that the ingredient contains. This is what you would find in a
proximate analysis.
• Total: total Ca would be the sum of the analyzed Ca plus the Ca released by phytase.
- Bioavailability
○ Available P is estimated by using a method called “slope-ratio assay.” It estimates the digestible plus post-
absorptive utilization of these minerals at the tissue level relative to a standard inorganic source; however, this
method is more expensive and assumes that an inorganic standard is 100% available.
- Digestibility
○ Apparent Total Tract Digestibility (ATTD): estimates the total tract digestibility of Ca and P based on the
difference between the amount ingested and the recovered excreted amounts from feces without correcting
for basal endogenous losses.
○ Standardized Total Tract Digestibility (STTD): estimates the total tract digestibility of Ca and P based on the
difference between ingested and recovered amounts from the feces while correcting for basal endogenous
losses.
○ True Total Tract Digestibility (TTTD): estimates the total tract digestibility of Ca and P based on the difference
between ingested and excreted amounts while correcting for both basal and specific endogenous losses.
The NRC (2012) reports the P requirement on a STTD, ATTD, and total basis. The STTD P manner of expressing P is becoming
more common among researchers and nutritionists around the world. Establishing the optimum concentration of P on a
STTD basis remains an important issue. The NRC (2012) reported the STTD P requirement estimates for nursery pigs based
on a mathematical regression model and grow-finish pigs based on a factorial approach. Two recent studies with 1,080
and 2,140 PIC® crossbred pigs have determined that the NRC (2012) accurately estimates the STTD P requirement of 25 to
50 lbs pigs on a g/d basis (Vier et al., 2019a). As a percentage of the diet, the STTD P requirement for diets without or with
454 FYT/lb added phytase ranged from 0.34 to 0.42% to optimize feed efficiency and growth rate. A recent trial with 1,130
PIC® crossbred pigs indicated that the estimated STTD P concentrations to maximize growth and bone mineralization for
53 to 287 lbs pigs were 122% and 131% of the NRC (2012) requirement estimates as a percentage of the diet for mixed
gender pigs with mean protein deposition of 135 g/day, respectively (Vier et al., 2019b). The grams of STTD P per lb gain in
the nursery and grow-finish phases were 2.62 and 3.40, respectively.

D-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Below are the regression equations used to estimate the PIC® STTD P to calorie ratio requirements based on gender and
body weight:
STTD P for Mixed Gender (Barrows and Gilts), g/Mcal of NE = 0.000047 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)² -
0.014391 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622) + 2.027515.
STTD P for Mixed Gender (Barrows and Gilts), g/Mcal of ME = 0.000031 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)² -
0.009664 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622) + 1.476751.
STTD P for Barrows if weight is < 88 lbs = the same STTD P:Mcal of mixed gender;
STTD P for Barrows if weight is > 88 lbs = g STTD P:Mcal for mixed gender - [-0.0000000031 × (weight, lb
÷ 2.204622)⁴ + 0.0000013234 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)³ -0.0002087068 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)² +
0.0142221655 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622) - 0.3126825057] × g STTD P:Mcal for mixed gender
STTD P for Gilts if weight is < 88 lbs = the same STTD P:Mcal of mixed gender;
STTD P for Gilts if weight is > 88 lbs = g STTD P:Mcal for mixed gender + [-0.0000000031 × (weight, lb ÷
2.204622)⁴ + 0.0000013234 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)³ -0.0002087068 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)² +
0.0142221655 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622) - 0.3126825057] × g STTD P:Mcal for mixed gender
STTD P for Boars if weight < 66 lbs = the same STTD P:Mcal of Gilts.
STTD P for Boars if weight > 66 lbs = g STTD P:Mcal of Gilts + [-0.0000000019 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)⁴
+ 0.0000007208 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)³ – 0.0000963713 × (weight, lb ÷ 2.204622)² + 0.0050363106 ×
(weight, lb ÷ 2.204622) – 0.0486016916] × g STTD P:Mcal of Gilts
STTD P for Developing Gilts = 1.08 × STTD P:Mcal of Gilts
Refer to the PIC® Nutrient Specification Tables for the P requirements in an available and STTD basis. The recommendations
for available P are estimated as 86% of the STTD P recommendations in a corn-soybean meal-diet using STTD P coefficient
and P bioavailability from NRC (1998 and 2012).
After the minimum P concentrations of the diet are defined, the Ca concentrations are defined as a ratio to P. Several
studies have shown that a wide Ca to P ratio is detrimental to pig growth performance and is more evident when P is
deficient or marginal (Gonzalez-Vega et al., 2016a,b; Merriman et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2018). However, the optimal ratio
between Ca and P could be affected by dietary components, such as phytase. Vier et al. (2019c) reported that the analyzed
Ca to analyzed P ratio maximized ADG at 1.38:1 for 57 to 280 lbs PIC® pigs fed diets with P in excess of that suggested by
NRC (2012) and no added phytase. The optimal ratio increased to 1.63:1 analyzed Ca to analyzed P when phytase was
added to the diets at 454 FYT/lb.
Recent work focuses on defining digestible Ca concentrations from different feed ingredients, which may be used in diet
formulation in the future (Stein et al., 2016). A recent trial reported that the Ca to P ratio expressed on a STTD Ca:STTD P
basis was more consistent for diets with or without phytase, as compared to the ratio expressed on an analyzed Ca:analyzed
P basis (Vier et al., 2019c).
This manual will focus on analyzed Ca. Some ingredients and feed additives may contain Ca sources as a flow agent or
carrier. The Ca in these sources are often not accounted for in diet formulation and may have a significant impact on the
Ca to P ratio; thus, actual analyzed Ca values may differ from formulated values.

D-3
Biological and Economic Models for Optimum Phosphorus Concentration
Dietary P can greatly impact pig growth performance. Phosphorus is considered the third most expensive nutrient in swine
diets and has an environmental impact related to its excretion. A study in a commercial setting has demonstrated the STTD
P requirement of modern genotypes is greater than NRC estimates as a percentage of the diet for market pigs with mean
protein deposition of 135 g/d. It is still similar to NRC for pigs with a greater mean protein deposition of 155 g/d (Vier et al.,
2019b). However, the STTD P concentration to support maximal growth will not always result in maximum economic return.
Kansas State University and PIC® developed an Excel-based tool to compare current STTD P concentrations to concentrations
required to achieve maximum growth performance, while considering the financial inputs and implications. Click here to
access these tools and instructions.
Sodium and Chloride Requirements

Sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl) are important for maintaining water and electrolytes’ homeostasis, pH regulation, and
nutrient absorption. Greater concentrations of Na and Cl are required by nursery pigs, which is greatly reduced for grow-
finish, gestating and lactating sows (NRC, 2012; Shawk et al., 2018; Shawk et al., 2019) The most common source of these
ions is added salt (NaCl). Table salt contains approximately 39.5% Na and 59% Cl. Be aware that rock salt, often gray in
color, will likely have lower Na and Cl concentrations. A deficiency of Na or Cl can reduce feed intake, average daily gain, and
worsen feed efficiency. Salt deficiency can induce tail biting (Fraser et al., 1987). Pigs can tolerate high concentrations of
salt provided they have ample access to drinking water. Inadequate water supply in conjunction with high concentrations
of salt can induce “salt poisoning”. Finally, it is important to monitor Na concentrations in feed ingredients to ensure that
the expected formulated concentrations are achieved.

D-4 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Section E
Trace Minerals and Vitamins
This chapter will discuss minerals and vitamins’ supplementation focusing on

optimizing performance. Adequate amounts of trace minerals and vitamins in diets
are important due to their various roles in regulatory functions. These roles can
range from maintaining hoof structure to maximizing reproduction efficiency.
• The vitamin recommendations were updated based on two recent trials under commercial
conditions.
• The trace mineral recommendations were adjusted to allow simpler implementation.
• Feeding excess minerals or vitamins can result in toxicity and increased diet cost, whereas
feeding inadequate concentrations can result in deficiencies and reduced performance
(NRC, 2012; Dritz et al., 2019).

E-1
Trace Minerals
Trace minerals commonly supplemented in swine diets include zinc, manganese, iron, copper, iodine and selenium. These
specific trace minerals are available in inorganic and organic forms (inorganic forms: sulfates, oxides, chlorides, etc.; and
organic forms: chelates, proteinates, etc.) The inorganic forms are most widely used in diets to meet the pigs’ requirements.
Beyond concentrations needed for biological requirements, pharmacological concentrationss of inorganic zinc (zinc oxide)
have been used for nursery pigs to promote gut health and growth. High copper (copper sulfate and tribasic copper
chloride) concentration have been used in nursery and grow-finish diets to promote performance. Recent studies showed
that sows fed high dietary copper (220 vs. 20 ppm) for multiple parities had improved piglet weight gain. A follow-up
nursery trial used their offspring showed the growth-promoting effects of copper might depend on the whole-body copper
status (Lu and Lindemann, 2017; Lu et al., 2018). Dietary supplementation of chromium tripicolinate has been reported to
improve the litter size of born alive pigs in long-term reproductive female studies that acrossed at least 2 parities, and the
mangnitude of response was depending on time and dose of the chromium supplementation (Lindemann and Lu, 2019).
Trace mineral supplementation in animal feeds is strictly regulated in some countries due to environmental concerns
(Underwood and Suttle, 1999). Ensure that the trace mineral supplementation complies with the local regulations.
As compared to the inorganic source, organic trace minerals are more stable in low pH environments thanks to the
formation of organic ligands. They are expected to have less antagonisms and greater uptake in the small intestines (Leeson
and Summers, 2001). The greater digestibility and bioavailability of organic trace minerals allows the producer to achieve
similar or improved performance with reduced inclusion rates (Richards et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2014). Some studies have
shown organic trace minerals could boost immune response, alleviate oxidative stress, enhance bone development and
strength, and improve sow reproductive performance (Peters and Mahan, 2008; Richards et al., 2010; She et al., 2017;
Liao et al., 2018). However, these responses have been inconsistent, a majority of pigs are fed inorganic trace minerals in
North America (Flohr et al., 2016). One exception is organic selenium, which has a broader acceptance especially in sow
and boar diets.

E-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Vitamins
Vitamins play critical roles (as coenzymes) in various metabolic pathways of normal growth and reproduction. Proper
concentrations of vitamin supplementation are important to optimize performance and minimize unnecessary costs.
Vitamins are commonly added to commercial diets at concentrations exceeding the NRC (2012) requirement estimates.
A survey compared current supplemental vitamin feeding regimens of the US swine industry to the NRC requirement
estimates (Flohr et al., 2016). Results showed fat-soluble vitamins were added at rates of 4.0 to 11.6 times in nursery diets
and 1.8 to 6.7 times higher in grow-finish diets. Other vitamins were added at rates 0.4 to 7.1 times in nursery and 0.7 to
3.8 times in grow-finish diets. A recent study evaluated vitamin concentrations supplemented in a commercial wean-to-
finish program with 1,200 PIC® pigs (PIC® 337 × Camborough®; Thompson et al., 2020).
Treatments consisted of added vitamins from the premix without accounting for those in ingredients (Table E1):
1. NRC 2012: added vitamin concentrations identical to NRC (2012) recommendations;

2. PIC® 2016: added vitamin concentrations identical to PIC® (2016) recommendations; and
3. Below PIC® 2016: added vitamin concentrations below PIC® (2016) recommendations.
Table E1. Added Vitamin Concentrations (per lb of Complete Diet) for Pigs from 11 to 287 lbs for the Three Treatments
(Thompson et al., 2020)
Treatment NRC 2012 PIC® 2016 Below PIC® 2016
Bodyweight range, lbs 11-55 55-287 11-55 55-176 176-287 11-55 55-176 176-287
Vitamin A, IU 998 590 5000 3000 2500 1905 1270 1270
Vitamin D3, IU 100 68 800 550 460 726 363 290
Vitamin E, IU 7 5 39 15 13 7 5 5
Vitamin K, mg 0.2 0.2 2.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 0.7 0.5
Thiamin, mg 0.5 0.5 1.6 --- --- --- --- ---
Riboflavin, mg 1.6 0.9 5.9 2.6 2.2 3.6 1.8 1.4
Pyridoxine, mg 3.2 0.5 3.2 --- --- --- --- ---
Vitamin B12, µg 8 2 25 12 10 18 9 7
Niacin, mg 14 14 32 18 14 23 11 9
d-Pantothenic acid, mg 5 3 18 9 8 13 6 5
Folic acid, mg 0.14 0.14 0.48 --- --- --- --- ---
Biotin, mg 0.02 0.02 0.12 --- --- --- --- ---

E-3
Figure E1. Effects of Different Added Vitamin Concentrations on Growth Performance of Nursery (Top) and Grow-Finish
(Bottom) Pigs (Thompson et al., 2020)
In the nursery and grow-finish periods (12 to 282 lbs), there was no evidence of differences in growth rate, feed intake, and
feed efficiency among treatments (Figure E1). Tuffo et al. (2019) reported similar results, with no evidence for differences
on the overall growth performance of grow-finish pigs (35 to 276 lbs) fed low or high vitamin supplemented diets. In
addition, the added vitamin concentrations in Tuffo’s low vitamin diets were similar to those in the Below PIC® 2016 diets.
Therefore, PIC® lowered the recommended concentrations of supplemental vitamins based on these two most recent
trials and adjusted the trace mineral recommendations to allow simpler implementation. Although, there was no evidence
of difference from the NRC concentrations we recommend using a margin of safety to account for losses under a wide
variety of conditions.

E-4 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Section F
Mature Boar
Boar feeding program objectives are to promote adequate growth, maximize

reproductive performance, maintain structural soundness and enhance longevity.
• Feeding guidelines are based on body weight with adjustments for body condition and
environment.
• The PIC® Optimum Boar Feeding tool calculates recommended nutrient levels for boars
during quarantine and production.
• Feeding management is important for the success of a boar feeding program.

F-1
Boar Feeding
Boars are not only a source of genetic improvement but also influence farrowing rate and litter size. They represent a
small part of the population, and research to make specific recommendations on boar diet nutrient content is relatively
scarce. Boar feed is a small percentage of the total feed needed by a production system. There is little understanding of
the boar’s precise nutrient needs. Thus many vitamins and trace minerals are provided with large margins of safety. Use
caution because excesses can be detrimental to performance. The nutrient recommendations for boars are presented in
the nutrition specification tables. These recommendations are used by PIC®s studs and are given for reference.
The influence of a boar’s nutritional status on reproductive performance is measured by libido, semen output, viability,
and fertilization capacity of the sperm cells (semen quality). Suggested energy and amino acid levels are based on
limited research. The energy and amino acid nutrition effects on boar reproductive performance have been measured by
Stevermer (1961), Kemp et al. (1989), Close and Roberts (1993), Louis et al. (1994a,b).
Feeding During Quarantine

Before semen collection, boars are received and housed in a quarantine barn for approximately 30 to 35 days, usually
in individual stalls or pens. Estimate the feeding level by the energy requirement for maintenance and body weight
gain (ARC, 1981; Close and Roberts, 1993). Table F1 shows the feeding levels for boars during quarantine estimated by
the PIC® Optimum Boar Feeding Tool (Please click here). The first few days in quarantine feed intake will be lower due
to transportation stress. Do not feed more than 5 lbs for the first few days after arrival, then gradually increase to the
desired feeding level by the end of the quarantine.
Feeding When in Production

Feed intake levels for mature boars depend on both body weight and body condition. Maintenance, body weight gain,
and semen collection and production indicate the boars’ energy requirement which dictates feeding level (ARC, 1981;
Close and Roberts, 1993; Kemp et al., 1990). Table F1 gives a base recommended feeding level for boars based on body
weight and depending on the season. Make adjustments to the levels indicated in Table F1 to achieve the desired body
condition score (Levis, 1997). Feed thin boars an additional pound over the desired level, and feed fat boars a half-pound
below the desired level shown in Table F1. An adult boar’s thermoneutral temperature is 63°F (Stähr et al., 2009). Adjust
feed to compensate for boars housed below thermoneutral temperature. Please refer to PIC® Boar Stud Management
Guidelines for more information on body condition scoring, click here.

F-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Table F1. Feeding Level for Boars in Quarantine and Productiona
Warm Season Cold Season
Body Weight, lbs ME, NE, Feeding ME, NE, Feeding
Mcal/dayb Mcal/dayc Level, lb/day Mcal/dayb Mcal/dayc Level, lb/day
Quarantined 8.2 6.2 5.7 8.6 6.4 6.0
400 8.0 6.0 5.5 8.3 6.3 5.8
470 8.0 6.0 5.6 8.5 6.4 5.9
540 8.2 6.2 5.7 8.7 6.5 6.0
610 8.5 6.4 5.9 9.0 6.8 6.3
680 8.9 6.7 6.2 9.5 7.1 6.6
750 9.5 7.1 6.6 10.1 7.6 7.0
aAssuming ambient temperature in warm season is 63°F and above, whereas 59°F in cold season. Based on a dietary energy density of 1440 Kcal ME/lb.
ME = Metabolizable energy; NE = Net energy.
bDaily ME requirement is estimated by the following models:
ME for maintenance = 0.1832 × [(Body weight, lb) ÷ 2.2046]0.665, Mcal/d
ME for growth = 4.89 × [(Body weight gain, lb) ÷ 2.2046], Mcal/d
ME for sperm production = 0.1 Mcal/d
ME for each degree below 63 degrees Fahrenheit for individually housed boars on slatted floor
= 0.0021 × [(Body weight, lb) ÷ 2.2046]0.75, Mcal/degree/d
ME for mating activity = 0.0043 × [(Body weight, lb) ÷ 2.2046]0.75, Mcal/d
cAssuming NE to ME ratio at 0.75.
dME requirement during quarantine considers only ME for maintenance and growth.
Consumption of feed contaminated with mycotoxins can negatively influence boar reproductive performance. Semen
ejaculate volume and sperm motility were reduced for boars greater than 10 months old fed diets contaminated with
0.57 ppm of zearalenone compared to boars fed mycotoxin-free feed (Sutkevičienė et al., 2009). Moreover, libido of
young and mature boars is reduced due to a decrease in testosterone when fed diets contaminated with zearalenone
(Berger et al., 1981; Ruhr et al., 1983).
Protein intake has not shown an effect on semen quality. Low protein intake can result in a reduction in libido and semen
volume as demonstrated by Louis et al. (1994a, b). According to Kemp et al. (1988), increasing the dietary protein level
above levels fed to gestating sows (14.5% CP with 0.68% Lys) did not benefit sperm production. In general, feeding 0.62%
SID Lys seems to be enough to support mature boar reproductive performance. Younger boars (< 11 months of age) may
have improved reproductive performance with higher Lys levels. Recommended dietary zinc concentrations range from
100 to 150 ppm. The use of an organic form of zinc above the recommended levels did not improve semen quantity
or quality (Althouse et al., 2000). Although no experimental data are available, biotin is often added at 200-300 mg/
ton (Tokach and Goodband, 2007). There is some evidence that 0.3 ppm of organic selenium may help maintain sperm
motility after consecutive collections, help reduce the negative effects of semen storage on semen motility, and improve
in vitro fertilization rates (Speight et al., 2012).
The impact of super dosing phytase is not clear. In a study conducted by Stewart et al. (2016), the authors reported that
super dosing phytase (907 FTU/lb of diet; Quantum® Blue) resulted in 11% increase in semen doses produced per boar
per year. However, in another super dosing phytase trial (227, 907, and 1360 FTU/lb of diet; Quantum® Blue), there was
no evidence for differences in total sperm count and semen doses produced (Moreira et al., 2016). Further investigation
is needed.

F-3
Omega-3 fatty acids, including linolenic, eicosapentaenoic, and docosahexaenoic, appear to positively impact boar
semen quality. Sufficient quantities of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic can be metabolized from linolenic acid.
An increase of 11% in total sperm cells per ejaculate has been reported in boars being fed for 16 weeks with 0.65 lb/d
of a top-dressed supplement containing 31% omega-3 fatty acids (Estienne et al., 2008). A recent study has reported
a marginally significant increase in total sperm production of 6% for boars fed 16.3 g of a product with 96% betaine
during summer months (Cabezón et al., 2016). Another recent study has suggested that supplementation of 0.8 to 1.0%
L-arginine improved semen quality and libido during hot summer months (Chen et al., 2018).
Additionally, boars supplemented with L-carnitine at 500 mg (Baumgartner, 1998) or 230 mg (Wähner et al., 2004)
demonstrated increased sperm volume and concentration. Data from Kozink et al. (2004) did not support these effects in
the young boar. Jacyno et al. (2007) supplemented 500 mg of L-carnitine per day and observed improvements on semen
quality related to ejaculate volume, concentration, morphological abnormalities of the sperm and activity of aspartate
aminotransferase. More research is warranted to validate these findings.
Optimum Feeding Level for PIC® Boars

Boars are the source of genetic improvement, and the performance of boars also affects farrowing rate and litter size.
Feeding boars to their body condition is critical to optimize performance and longevity. The PIC® Optimum Boar Feeding
Tool estimates optimum feeding levels for boars in quarantine and production, which balances diet energy level, boar
body weight, boar weight gain, collection intensity, and ambient temperature. It helps production supervisors and
nutritionists to create a tailored boar feeding program that matches production reality. Click here to access this tool
through computers, smartphones or tablets.

F-4 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Section G
Developing Gilt
When feeding developing gilts to maximize lifetime productivity, the goals are
adequate growth rate, sufficient mineral stores and bone development, reproductive
tract maturation, and sound foot and leg structure.
• Gilt breeding eligibility targets are:
- Age at puberty: Less than 195 days of age.
- Age: 200 to 225 days.
- Body weight: 300 to 350 lbs.
- Estrus: 2nd estrus (3rd only if < 300 lbs).
- Lifetime average daily gain of 1.32 to 1.76 lbs/d, with increased bone stores and
vitamin fortification specific for reproduction.
• Differences between gilt development diet and market gilt diet.
• These gilt targets are important for improving lifetime productivity and reducing lifetime
total feed cost.

G-1
Targets for Gilt Development
Gilt development and management begin in the early stages of a gilt’s life and ends when the gilt completes her first
lactation (Boyd et al., 2002). Consider multiple factors to achieve a successful gilt development program. Age at puberty,
age, weight, and number of estruses at first breeding are key elements for the long-term success of the gilt pool and the
sow herd (Table G1).
Gilts should achieve puberty at less than 195 days of age. The ideal age range for breeding is between 200 and 225 days,
with a weight range from 300 to 350 lbs bodyweight and at 2nd estrus (3rd only if light). Gilts below 300 lbs are too light
and should not be bred as they are prone to reduced prolificacy. Avoid breeding gilts over 350 lbs due to the elevated
maintenance cost, more lactation weight loss, increased chances of locomotor problems, and a higher rate of early
culling. To achieve both age and weight targets for gilts at first breeding, the lifetime average daily gain from birth to the
first service is between 1.32 and 1.76 lbs/day. Please refer to PIC® Gilt Development Guidelines (Please click here) for
detailed information.
Table G1. Targets for Developing Gilts at First Breeding

Trait Target
Estrus at first service
Minimal 2
Body weight
Too light, do not breed < 300 lbs
Eligible to breed 300-350 lbs
Too heavy > 350 lbs
ADG from birth to first breeding, lb/d
Minimal 1.32
Maximal 1.76
Age at first breeding, days
Minimal 200
Maximal 225
Age at puberty, days
Younger than 195
Gilt Feeding Recommendations

To meet the gilt targets at first breeding, PIC® recommends ad libitum feeding from birth to the first breeding. The Lys
to calorie ratio for developing gilts is adopted from the recommendations for PIC® market gilts. Dietary energy level can
be used to regulate growth rate. Maximizing bone mineralization is one of the primary goals for gilt development. Feed
developing gilts Ca and P levels greater than grow-finish pigs (Whitney and Masker, 2010). Based on a recent trial with
PIC® market pigs (Vier et al., 2019b), recommended phosphorus concentrations for developing gilts are approximately
8% greater than the commercial gilt recommendations to maximize bone mineralization.
As a summary, key differences of a gilt development diet comparing to a market gilt diet are:
1. Greater Ca and P levels.
2. Increased vitamin and trace mineral levels.
3. Addition of vitamins specifically required for reproduction (pyridoxine, folic acid, biotin).
For more detailed nutrient specifications for developing gilt, refer to Section N: PIC® Nutrient Specifications for
Developing Gilts (As-Fed).

G-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Producers without feed mill capacity to manufacture a series of specialized gilt development diets can take advantage of
existing diets to reduce diet types. Table G2 gives examples of options for developing gilt feeding programs.
Table G2. Examples of Feeding Programs for Developing Gilts

Body Weight of Developing Gilts, lbs
50 to 130 130 to 200 200 to Breeding
Use GDUa specific diet or either Use GDU specific diets. One or Use a GDU specific diet or the
the commercial gilt diet or the more diets maybe used within gestation diet which is typically
lactation diet. this weight range. used in many farms.
aGDU = Gilt developing unit.
For further information about the management of the developing gilt, please click here for the PIC® Gilt and Sow
Management Guidelines.

G-3
G-4 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Section H
Gestating Gilt and Sow
During gestation, the feeding goal is to manage body condition and have an adequate
nutrient supply for maternal maintenance, growth, and development of the placenta,
mammary tissue, uterus, and conceptus.
• Body condition management:
- Body condition determines the desired feeding levels during gestation.
- Use a caliper to score and maximize the number of sows in ideal body condition at
farrowing.
• Early gestation:
- Do not feed under maintenance and do not feed over two times of maintenance or
over 10 Mcal of ME/d.
- Check individual feed intake, mainly for gilts and parity 1 sows, in the first few days
after being group-housed and fed through electronic sow feeding systems.
- If aggressive behavior is observed right after grouping , consider providing an extra
7 lbs/d for no longer than five days.
• Late gestation:
- Obtain caliper reading and feed according to body condition as recommended.
If unable to obtain it, maintain feeding level from previous periods.
• Peripartum:
- Feed lactation diet the same level as sows were fed in gestation.
- Increased feeding frequency has been shown to reduce stillborn rate when farrowing
assistance is limited.
H-1
The estimated caliper score change is based on a sow herd assuming an average body weight of 440 lbs. The regression equation was reported by
Knauer et al., (2020): caliper score change per day = 1.35 × (ME intake, Mcal/d) ÷ [(Body weight, lb) ÷ 2.2046]0.75 – 0.1332.
Figure H1. PIC® Feeding Recommendations for Gilts of Sows During Gestation
Sow Body Condition Management

• Body condition of sows is associated with subsequent reproductive performance
• Minimize thin sows at farrowing, fat sows at weaning, and maximize ideal sows at farrowing as much as possible
• Use body condition as guidelines for gestation feeding
A key aspect of a high-performance sow farm is to manage sow body condition properly. The goal is to maintain well-
conditioned sows, with 90% of the sows in ideal condition at farrowing (Figure H2). Several methods are available for the
estimation of sow body condition, including visual scoring, backfat, and the caliper. PIC® recommends using the caliper to
assess sow body condition. Click here to access the most updated technical material of sow body condition management.
THIN IDEAL FAT

Figure H2. Sow Body Condition Measurement Using a Sow Caliper

H-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Globally our technical service teams commonly observe over-conditioned sows at farrowing. Fat sows are costly from
a feed perspective and because they have poorer lactation performance and compromised subsequent performance.
Voluntary feed intake during lactation is decreased when sows are over-conditioned at farrowing, resulting in greater
body weight loss, lower milk production, and potentially lighter piglet weights at weaning. This negative energy balance
during lactation will likely result in a subsequent reduced litter size. Moreover, a yet-to-be-published observational study
on approximately 4,500 gilts indicated that their body condition at first farrow and body condition change during the
first lactation is associated with longevity (Figure H3). Gilts in ideal condition at first farrowing had greater retention
rate up to 3rd farrowing compared to thin and fat gilts. The retention rate was further reduced for fat gilts as caliper
unit loss during lactation increased, with approximately 60% of the gilts in the database losing over 3 caliper units. This
emphasizes the importance of properly maintaining gilts and sows in ideal body condition to improve feed savings and
maximize reproductive performance.
a,b,c
Bar means without common superscript differ, P < 0.10.
Figure H3. Retention Rate up to Third Parity According to Gilt Body Condition at First Farrowing and Body Condition
Change during Lactation (Huerta et al., 2021)
The breeding goals of PIC® maternal lines have changed over time. Besides reproductive traits, approximately 40% of the
terminal line traits such as grow-finish survival and robustness, efficiency of growth, and carcass traits are also included
in the maternal line traits. As a result, the modern PIC Camborough® sow is more efficient than in the past.
A recent study evaluated the NRC (2012) model in predicting the standard maintenance metabolizable energy (MEm)
requirement of PIC® sows during mid-gestation (Knauer et al., 2020). In this study, 200 Camborough® sows were fed
80, 90, 100, or 110% of MEm according to the NRC (2012) equation MEm, kcal/d = 100 × (body weight)0.75. Sows started
on trial between day 36 and 46 post-breeding and were fed a corn-soybean meal-based diet with 1,498 Kcal ME/lb and
0.61% SID Lys for 28 days.

H-3
Results showed that the MEm to maintain body weight and sow body condition caliper score were below 80% and 98.7%
of the NRC (2012) MEm requirement estimates, respectively (Figure H4). Even though sows in all the treatments had
positive average daily gain during this period, there is an increase in accumulation of embryonic fluid between d 40 and
60 of gestation, which could be influencing gain (Bazer et al., 2012). Results showed that the NRC (2012) model only
slightly overestimates the MEm requirement of Camborough® sows during mid-gestation. The information obtained in
this trial was used to create the current feeding recommendations for gilts and sows throughout gestation.
a,b,c
Bar means without common letter differ, P < 0.05.
Figure H4. Average Daily Gain (Top) and Caliper Score Change (Bottom) of Sows Fed 80, 90, 100, or 110% of
Maintenance Metabolizable Energy (MEm) According to the NRC (2012) Equation, MEm, kcal/d = 100 × (Body
Weight)0.75, for 28 Days Starting Between d 36 and 46 of Gestation (Adapted from Knauer et al., 2020)

Early-Gestation Feeding
• Do not feed under maintenance energy requirement.
• Do not feed over two times maintenance energy requirement or over 10 Mcal of ME/d.
Effects of different feeding levels in early gestation on embryo survival, plasma progesterone and subsequent total born of
gilts and sows from different studies are summarized in Table H1. In the past, high feed intake after breeding was associated
with lower embryonic survival, thus sow feed intake was limited (Jindal et al., 1996). Contrarily, recent studies have
demonstrated lower embryo survival and litter sizes for females that were restrict fed (Athorn et al., 2013; Langendijk et al.,
2017). In a recent study, Mallmann et al. (2020) found that thin parity 1 sows responded to intermediate feeding levels from
d 6 to 30 of gestation (5.7 vs. 7.8 Mcal ME/d; 108 vs. 150% of maintenance) as demonstrated by increased total born. The
authors observed a reduction in piglet throughput for gilts and sows fed over 10 Mcal ME/d.
In group housing with electronic sow feeding systems monitor individual animal feed intake. Especially for gilts and parity 1 sows
in the first few days after grouping. Also, if aggressive behavior is observed right after grouping consider providing increased feed
per sow or gilt with a maximum of 7lbs. Research suggests aggressive behavior decreases after the first few days after mixing.
Thus, ensure the increased feed allotment is provided for no longer than five days to prevent excess sow weight gain.
Table H1. Descriptive Summary of Experiments Evaluating the Impact of Different Feeding Level During Early Gestation
on Embryo Survivability, Plasma Progesterone, and Subsequent Total Born of Gilts and Sows
Feeding level,
Weight at % of MEm Response criteria
Gestation MEm, lbs/d
Reference breeding,
days Mcal/d Embryo Plasma Total
lbs CON. TRT. CON. TRT.
survivability progesterone born
Jindal et al., 1996a 1 – 15 256 3.52 4.2 5.7 146% 200% -22% -57% ----
De et al., 2008a 1 – 35 --- --- --- --- 120% 200% -20% -14% ---
Athorn et al., 2013a 0 – 10 278 3.76 3.3 6.2 115% 215% 19% 26% ---
Langendijk et al., 2015a 10 – 11 227 3.22 0.0 5.5 0% 223% --- -8% 24%
Virolainen et al., 2005b 1 – 35 556 6.32 4.4 8.8 89% 179% -35% -25% ---
Hoving, 2012b 3 – 35 375 4.71 5.5 7.3 165% 215% 2% ns ---
Mallmann et al, 2020b 6 – 30 434 5.26 4.0 5.5 108% 150% --- --- 0%
Mallmann et al, 2020b 6 – 30 434 5.26 4.0 7.1 108% 192% --- --- -8%
Weighted Average --- 408 5.00 4.0 6.4 111% 180% -12% -24% -2%
aThe trial was conducted with gilts only.
bThe trial was conducted with sows only.
Late-Gestation Feeding
• Continue to feed according to body condition.
• Maintain feeding level from the previous period if unable to get a caliper reading.
The NRC (2012) suggests that each piglet increase results in an increase of approximately 0.10 and 0.35 g of SID Lys
required per day from day 1 to 90 and day 90 to 114 of gestation, respectively. Thus, nutrient requirements have
not changed enough to have a dramatic requirement update. Multiple studies were unable to increase gilt and sow
reproductive performance by increasing feed intake (Ampaire and Levesque, 2016; Buis et al., 2016; Gonçalves et al.,
2016b; Greiner et al., 2016; Mallmann et al., 2019). This seems to indicate that even though the requirements change
during the course of gestation the sow is resilient at mobilizing body tissues at a relatively wide range of nutrient intake.
Therefore based on the practical realities in most production systems, feeding a single gestation diet and a flat feeding
amount for sows in ideal body condition has the advantage of being simpler to manage in the farm.
Studies that evaluated increased feed intake in late gestation for gilts or sows are summarized in Table H2 and H3. The
data shows a body weight (BW) increase by approximately 7.7 and 8.9 lbs, respectively when gilts and sows are bump fed
an extra 1 lb/d during late gestation. The effect of bump feeding on piglet birth weight was modest for gilts (0.026 lbs)
and minimal for sows (-0.003 lbs).

H-5
Table H2. Descriptive Summary of Experiments Evaluating the Impact of Increased Feed Intake During Late Gestation
on Gilt Body Weight Gain and Piglet Birth Weight
Increased Increased Increased by treatment
Start, Litters per Total Control, Control, g feed feed Female BW
Reference day of treatment, born, Mcal SID intake, intake,g gain, lb/ Piglet birth
gestation n n ME/day Lys/day Mcal SID lb of extra weight, lbs
ME/day Lys/day daily feed
Shelton et al., 2009 90 21 14.3 6.8 11.9 9.8 17.1 6.6 0.19
Soto et al., 2011 100 24 12.5 7.0 9.87 12.9 18.2 NR 0.278
Goncalves et al., 2016 90 371 14.2 5.9 10.7 8.9 10.7 5.6 0.053
Goncalves et al., 2016 90 371 14.2 5.9 20.0 8.9 20.0 9.1 0.062
Greiner et al., 2016 100 65 13.4 5.9 9.0 8.8 14.0 NR -0.265
Ampaire and
90 17 13.4 7.2 12.3 8.6 14.5 24 -0.022
Levesque, 2016
Mallmann et al., 2018 90 50 14.4 5.9 11.7 7.2 14.3 6.5 0.013
Mallmann et al., 2019 90 243 14.1 5.9 11.5 7.6 14.7 6.4 0.057
Mallmann et al., 2019 90 242 14.3 5.9 11.5 9.2 17.9 8.8 -0.002
Mallmann et al., 2019 90 246 14.3 5.9 11.5 10.9 21.1 7.9 -0.024
Weighted Average --- --- 13.9 6.0 12.0 9.3 16.3 7.7 ± 2.4 0.026 ± 0.08
Table H3. Descriptive Summary of Experiments Evaluating the Impact of Increased Feed Intake During Late Gestation
on Sow Body Weight Gain and Piglet Birth Weight
Increased Increased Increased by treatment
Start, Litters per Total Control, Control, g feed feed Female BW
Reference day of treatment, born, Mcal SID intake, intake,g gain, lb/ Piglet birth
gestation n n ME/day Lys/day Mcal SID lb of extra weight, lbs
ME/day Lys/day daily feed
Shelton et al., 2009 90 32 12.4 7.9 11.9 11.4 19.9 4.9 -0.240
Soto et al., 2011 100 51 12.9 7.9 11.2 13.9 19.5 NR -0.152
Goncalves et al., 2016 90 181 15.1 5.9 10.7 8.9 10.7 9.0 0.104
Goncalves et al., 2016 90 181 15.3 5.9 20.0 8.9 20.0 10.8 0.042
Greiner et al., 2016 95 128 14.7 5.9 9.0 8.8 14.0 7.1 -0.088
Mallmann et al., 2018 90 221 15.4 5.9 11.7 7.2 14.3 9.0 0.009
Weighted Average --- --- 14.3 6.6 12.4 9.9 16.4 8.9 ± 1.6 -0.003 ± 0.097
PIC® stopped recommending bump feeding in 2016 for sows but not for gilts. According to Goncalves et al. (2016),
bump feeding only resulted in minimal improvements in piglet birth weight and increased stillbirth rate by 2.1% in sows
bump fed compared to sows not bump fed. However, the increased stillbirth rate was not observed in gilts (Figure H5).
In addition, energy was the driver of the modest increase in PIC® piglets’ birth weight rather than amino acid intake
(Gonçalves et al., 2016).

Figure H5. Bump Feeding can Increase 2.1% Stillborns in Sows, but not in Gilts (Diet with 1,500 kcal ME/lb; Gonçalves
et al., 2016)
A recent trial using 977 gilts with body condition score between 2.5 and 4.5 showed increasing daily feed intake (4.0, 5.1,
6.2, and 7.3 lbs/day; 1.14 Mcal of NE/lb and 0.64% SID Lys) from day 90 of gestation until farrowing marginally increased
birth weight of piglets born alive (Mallmann et al., 2019). However, increasing daily feed intake in late gestation over
4 lbs/day resulted in significantly greater stillborn rate (Table H4). This trial also showed a decrease (linear, P<0.05) in
colostrum yield and lactation voluntary feed intake and an increase (linear, P<0.05) in lactation weight loss as feed intake
increased.
Table H4. Effects of Increasing Feed Intake in the Last Third of Gestation on Gilt Performance during Lactation Under
Commercial Conditions1
Feed intake, lbs/day Probability, P =
Item SEM
4.0 5.1 6.2 7.3 Linear Quadratic
Stillborn rate, %² 3.4a 4.6b 5.5b 4.2b 0.52 -- --
Colostrum yield, lb³ 7.9 7.7 7.3 7.1 0.57 0.016 0.703
Voluntary feed intake, lb/d³ 9.3 9.0 8.4 8.6 0.51 0.001 0.165
Lactation weight change, %³ -8.1 -9.3 -11.3 -10.4 0.75 <0.001 0.169
1A total of 977 females (Landrace × Large White) were used, with 244, 242, 241, and 250 females for the treatments 4.0, 5.1, 6.2, and 7.3 lb/d,
respectively. Table adapted from Mallmann et al., 2019.
2Submitted to a nonparametric analysis.
3A total of 245 females (Landrace × Large White) were used, with 61, 66, 55, and 63 females for the treatments 4.0, 5.1, 6.2, and 7.3 lb/d, respectively.
a,b
Different superscripts within a row differ (P < 0.05).
These females were followed to their fourth farrowing (Figure H6). Increasing feed intake after day 90 of gestation for
gilts numerically reduced retention rate up to their fourth farrowing and reduced the number of days in the herd. Thus,
bump feeding gilts may result in increased chances of early culling, which negatively impacts sow longevity (adapted
from Mallmann et al., 2019).

H-7
Figure H6. Effects of Increasing Feed Intake in the Last Third of Gestation during the First Parity on Retention Rate in
the Subsequent Parities and Days to Removal
Today, PIC® does not recommend bump feeding for gilts or sows, except those with a caliper reading of thin at day 90
of gestation because increasing feed intake in late gestation resulted in a marginal improvement in piglet birth weight.
From a practical standpoint, this difference is of little importance compared to the negative effects of bump feeding on
stillborn rate, lactation feed intake, and retention in the herd (Gonçalves et al., 2016; Mallmann et al., 2018, 2019).
PIC®, universities and production systems worldwide will continue to monitor requirement changes with litter size and
litter weight changes.
Peripartum Feeding
• Feed lactation diet at the same level as sows were previously fed in gestation.
• Increase the frequency of feeding during peripartum:
- May reduce stillbirth rate when farrowing assistance is limited.
- May improve pre-weaning livability.
Feeding management during the pre-farrowing period (three to five days before farrowing/after moving to farrowing)
has been an area of increased interest by researchers (Cools et al., 2014; Decaluwé et al., 2014). Feed allowance
historically has been low in this period. Cools et al. (2014) showed that providing ad libitum feed prior to farrowing
improved weaning weight and piglet growth rate for well-conditioned sows, but negative effects were observed for fat
sows. Providing more feed in this period resulted in increased feed intake and decreased mobilization of body reserves
during lactation (Cools et al. 2014, Decaluwé et al., 2014). A greater feed allowance during the pre-farrowing period also
benefits colostrum yield and nutritional composition (Decaluwé et al., 2014).

Feyera et al. (2018) observed that farrowing duration is reduced if sows have access to feed and eat within 3 hours of
farrowing, hypothesizing that this is due to greater energy availability. The authors also observed that the odds ratio
of stillbirth is reduced if sows have access to feed within 3 hours prior to the onset of farrowing. Gourley et al. (2020a)
have shown that increased digestible Lys and energy for 3 or 8 days before farrowing resulted in increased sow and gilts
weight gain and born alive piglet birth weight in gilts. However, litter gain from day 2 of age to weaning in gilt litters
was reduced when they were fed higher Lys and energy for a longer period (8 days) before farrow. A more recent trial
showed no evidence for difference on stillbirth rate of sows fed 4 lbs/d, 6 lbs/d, or ad libitum since d 112 of gestation
until farrowing (Harper et al., 2021). Some veterinarians and nutritionists theorize that especially in herds with too many
fat sows and those that induce farrowing, providing ad libitum feed before farrowing may increase the risk of uterine and
rectal prolapses. Almond et al. (2006) theorized that fat sows might have weakened uterine muscle tone and increased
dystocia. This is an additional reason why we caution against ad libitum feeding too early or to over-conditioned herds.
Along with increasing feeding levels, increasing feeding frequency during peripartum was reported to improve
pre-weaning livability (Gourley et al., 2020b) and reduce stillbirth rate when farrowing assistance is limited
(Miller and Kellner, 2020).
Dynamic Feeding Program for PIC® Females

PIC® females are prolific and efficient—underfeeding or overfeeding results in reduced sow and litter performance. Body
condition management is key for a successful sow herd. The body condition of the sow is what should guide the feeding
program. PIC® recommendations for nutrition and feeding during gestation, peripartum, lactation, and wean to estrus
interval are based on research with large-scale, commercial-designed experiments. The Dynamic Feeding Program for
PIC® Females tool provides recommendations for feeding modern and highly productive gilts and sows to maximize
lifetime productivity and optimize herd profitability. This user-friendly tool uses simple inputs regarding the user’s
reproductive performance parameters, current feeding programs, and dietary energy and Lys concentration. This tool
was developed to help production managers, technical service advisors, and nutritionists:
1. create a tailored feeding program for gilts and sows using the existing diets;
2. evaluate PIC® dietary nutrient recommendations; and
3. compare the opportunities in feed savings per sow per year and reproductive throughput.
Click here to access this application through computers, smartphones, or tablets.

H-9
Section I
Lactating Sow
Lactation nutrition and feeding goals are to ensure sows consume sufficient energy
and nutrients daily to optimize litter performance. Adequate nutrient intake should
minimize sow weight loss and enhance subsequent reproductive performance.
• Maximizing lactating sow feed intake is critical.
• Having the sows in proper body condition and farrowing her in a comfortable room with
access to ample feed and water will go a long way towards maximizing reproductive
performance.
• The lactation diet’s amino acid concentrations depend on the litter growth rate and herd
average feed intake.

I-1
Feeding Program
Ad libitum feeding PIC® lactating sows from the day of farrowing improves feed intake, milk yield, and piglet weaning weight
(Figure I1) while reducing sow weight loss compared to step-up feeding programs. Restricted feeding for the first 5 to 8 days
after farrowing reduces total lactation feed intake (PIC® internal data; Sulabo et al., 2010).
Lactation average daily feed intake (ADFI) means without common superscript differ, P < 0.05.
a,b
Piglet daily gain means without common superscript differ, P < 0.05.
x,y
1
8-d step up: daily feed allowance gradually increased from 4 lbs on the day of farrowing to ad libitum feeding on d 8 post-farrowing; 5-d step up:
daily feed allowance gradually increased from 4 lbs on the day of farrowing to ad libitum feeding on d 5 post-farrowing; Full feeding: ad libitum
feeding from the day of farrowing until weaning.
Figure I1. Effects of Different Lactation Feeding Strategies on Sow Lactation Feed Intake and Piglet Daily Gain (PIC®
internal data)1

I-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
High lactation feed intake reduces sow body weight loss, increases piglet ADG, and reduces wean-to-estrus interval
(Table I1).
Table I1. Effects of Feed Intake during Lactation on Wean-to-Estrus Interval, Body Weight Loss, and Piglet Average Daily
Gain (PIC® internal data)
Sow BW1 Sow BW1
ADFI1, lb SID1 Lys, g/d Piglet ADG1, lb WEI1, d
difference, lb difference, %
7.01 31.5 -57.98 -5.10 0.49 6.3
8.99 42.0 -50.49 -4.81 0.51 5.0
11.00 52.5 -12.79 -1.04 0.55 4.4
13.01 63.0 19.40 2.06 0.55 4.4
14.99 73.5 54.90 5.41 0.55 4.2
17.99 84.0 65.48 6.57 0.57 4.4
20.00 94.5 58.86 5.57 0.60 4.3
1ADFI = average daily feed intake; SID = standardized ileal digestible Lys; BW = body weight; ADG = average daily gain; WEI = wean-to-estrus interval.
Factors Influencing Lactation Feed Intake

The factors that can affect lactation feed intake are:
• Environment • Gestation feed intake
- Ambient temperature - Body condition at farrowing
- Air velocity • Sow factors
- Evaporative cooling - Lactation length
- Humidity - Litter size
- Ventilation rates - Genetics
• Facilities equipment - Parity
- Water flow - Disease
- Feeder design • Management
- Automated vs. hand feeding - Water availability
- Floor surface - Feeding frequency
- Crate design - Feed allowance
- Feed freshness
- Feeder adjustment
Having the sows in proper body condition and farrowing her in a comfortable room with access to ample feed and water
will drive towards maximizing reproductive performance.
Amino Acid Requirements

Genetic improvement of PIC® animals has increased litter size and milk production, impacting the lactating female’s
amino acid requirements. A trial using 1,000 PIC® gilts showed that increasing daily SID Lys intake improved (linear, P =
0.06) litter daily gain for gilts, with the greatest improvement observed from 42 to 59 g of daily SID Lys intake (Bruder
et al., 2018; Figure I2). Increasing daily SID Lys intake marginally improved (linear, P = 0.10) piglet daily gain for lactating
gilts and sows, with the greatest improvement observed from 43 to 57 g of daily SID Lys intake (Graham et al., 2018;
Figure I3). A recent trial (Sousa e Silva et al., 2019) using 600 multiparous lactating sows (PIC Camborough®) found when
increasing the SID Lys levels from 0.75 to 1.00% litter weight at weaning and piglet daily gain improved (linearly, P < 0.05)
regardless of dietary energy levels (1.45 or 1.54 Mcal of ME/lb). Based on the available data from the aforementioned
trials, PIC® current recommendation is 56.5 g of SID Lys intake per day for sows, 59.0 g of SID Lys intake per day for gilts
(minimum 50 g of SID Lys intake per day if using single lactation diet), and 57.0 g of SID Lys intake per day on herd basis.

I-3
Figure I2. Effects of Daily SID Lys Intake on Litter Weight Gain of Lactating Gilts (Bruder et al., 2018)
Figure I3. Effects of Daily SID Lys Intake on Piglet Weight Gain of Lactating Gilts and Sows (Graham et al., 2018)

The dietary Lys level during lactation depends on litter growth rate and herd average feed intake. Table I2 illustrates how
litter growth rate and sow feed intake are used to derive farm-specific dietary SID Lys levels. PIC® recommends setting
a maximal SID Lys level of 1.30% for lactation diet from a practical standpoint. Lactation diets that contain greater than
30% soybean meal reduce ADFI (Gourley et al., 2020c).
Table I2. Dietary Lys Concentrations (%) Based on Litter Growth Rate and Lactating Sow Feed Intakea
Litter growth Average feed intake, lbs/d SID Lys,
rate, lbs/d 10 11 12 13 14 g/d
4.5 0.96 0.87 0.80 0.74 0.68 43.3
5.0 1.09 0.99 0.91 0.84 0.78 49.6
5.5 1.23 1.12 1.03 0.95 0.88 55.9
6.0 1.37b 1.25 1.14 1.05 0.98 62.1
a
Adapted from Tokach et al., (2019). The relationship between litter growth rate and Lys needs (g/d) was established based on the published
studies conducted between 1998 and 2017 with primiparous and multiparous sows (Sauber et al., 1998; Yang et al., 2000, Xue et al., 2012;
Gourley et al., 2017), assuming 21 days of lactation and the Lys need is not strictly related to energy intake.
b
PIC® does not recommend lactation diets containing more than 600 pounds per ton of soybean meal or SID Lys levels over 1.30%.
Threonine and valine are considered the second and third limiting amino acids for lactation (Kim et al., 2001). Greiner
et al. (2017) reported increasing dietary SID threonine to Lys ratios (52, 60, 68, 76, and 84%; n=291, PIC Camborough®)
improved daily litter gain (quadratic, P = 0.001; Figure I4). The broken-line quadratic model determined the optimal
SID threonine to Lys ratio for litter growth at 65%. The optimal SID valine to Lys ratio was evaluated using 990 PIC
Camborough® sows (Touchette et al., 2018). Increasing SID valine to Lys ratio from 58 to 93% quadratically improved
piglet weaning weight (P = 0.06; Figure I5). It was concluded that dietary SID valine to Lys ratio as low as 65% could be
fed without affecting sow or piglet performance.
Figure I4. Effects of Dietary SID Threonine to Lys Ratios on Litter Weight Gain of Lactating Sows (Greiner et al., 2017)

I-5
Figure I5. Effects of Dietary SID Valine to Lys Ratios on Litter Weight Gain of Lactating Sows (Touchette et al., 2018)

A total of 37,402 feed intake observations collected from 405 PIC Camborough® and 1,665 PIC® L03 sows in two
commercial sow farms over a 10-month and 3-year periods, respectively, were evaluated to quantify and model lactation
daily feed intake for parity 1 and parity 2+ sows (Figure I6 and I7). The gilt lactation feed intake model shows that the
feed intake reaches a plateau at around 21 days of lactation, and the overall lactation ADFI increases by 0.127 lb for each
day above 21 days. The sow lactation feed intake model shows that the feed intake reaches a plateau at around 19 days
of lactation, and the overall lactation ADFI increases by 0.104 lb for each day above 19 days.

aDaily feed intake is estimated as a function of day of lactation. Daily feed intake
for parity 1 sows = 3.234049 + 0.949148 × Day - 0.022863 × Day² (R² = 0.53)
Figure I6. Daily Feed Intake during Lactation for PIC® Parity 1 Sows (Jerez et al., 2021)a
aDaily feed intake is estimated as a function of day of lactation. Daily feed intake
for parity 2+ sows = 4.104837 + 1.201068 × Day - 0.031364 × Day² (R² = 0.60)
Figure I7. Daily Feed Intake during Lactation for PIC® Parity 2+ Sows (Jerez et al., 2021)a

I-7
Ensure fresh feed and correctly adjust lactation feeders to stimulate feed intake (Figures I8 and I9).
Figure I8. Correctly Adjusted Lactation Feeder with Figure I9. Incorrectly Adjusted Lactation Feeder with
Fresh Feed Moldy Feed
Dynamic Feeding Program for PIC® Females

Adequate nutrient intake during lactation is one of the most critical points to realize the genetic potential of PIC® females.
The interactive web-based application, Dynamic Feeding Program for PIC® females, evaluates users’ dietary and
production information and provides customized recommendations to help the lactating sows meet daily nutrient intake
requirements. Click here to access this application through computers, smartphones, or tablets.

Section J
Weaned Sow
Feeding management of the weaned sow focuses on starting the recovery of

body reserves lost during lactation and supporting ovulation rate to ensure a large
subsequent litter size.
• Nutrition and feeding during the wean-to-estrus interval cannot fix prior issues such as
over condition in gestation and poor lactation intake.
• Feeding 6 lb/d of gestation diet to provide 8.7 Mcal of ME and 16.0 g of SID Lys per day is
enough to maximize subsequent reproductive performance.
• Only provide feed ad libitum for sows with caliper reading of thin.
• Do not skip a meal (think about the practical implications on wean day).
• Group sows by body condition.
• Ensure feed is fresh to minimize waste and spoilage.

J-1
Feed Program during the Wean-to-Estrus Interval
Menegat et al. (2018) have demonstrated that 5.5 lbs/d of a gestation diet containing 1,465 Kcal ME/lb and 0.60% SID Lys
seems to be enough to meet the SID Lys and energy requirements of the weaned sow (Figure J1). The body condition of
the weaned sow should define feeding levels.
Figure J1. Estimated Daily SID Lys (g/d) and ME (kcal/d) Requirements and Intake of Multiparous Sows During Wean-
to-Estrus Interval (Adapted from Menegat et al., 2018). It Assumes 2.2 lbs/d Gain and Feeding Level of 5.5 lbs/d from
d 1 to 7 After Weaning of a Gestation Diet Containing 1,465 Kcal ME/lb and 0.60% SID Lys
Several recent large-scale commercial experiments demonstrated that sows in good body condition do not benefit from
high feed allowance during the wean-to-estrus interval (WEI; Table J1). Graham et al. (2015) reported no evidence for
differences in WEI, farrowing rate (FR), total born (TB) and born alive (BA) when sows with a body condition score > 2.75
were fed 6.0, 7.9, or 11.9 lbs/d. Almeida et al. (2017) observed improvements in FR and number of piglets BA for every
100 sows bred (BA index) when sows were offered 8.2 lbs/d compared to 6.0 lbs/d. However, three subsequent studies
failed to demonstrate any reproductive performance improvements with increasing feed over 6 lbs/d during the WEI
(Almeida et al., 2018; Gianluppi et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2021). Increasing feed intake during the WEI has been shown to
improve under-conditioned sows’ reproductive performance (Baidoo et al., 1992).

J-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Table J1. Summary of Experiments on the Effects of Feeding Levels during the Wean-to-Estrus Interval on Sow and
Piglet Performance
Feed
Wean to Estrus Farrowing Born Alive
Experiment Allowance, Total Born, n BA index1, n
Interval, days Rate, % (BA), n
lbs/day
6.0 5.1 85.4 14.3 13.1 1,119
Graham et al., 2015 7.9 5.0 87.0 13.9 12.9 1,122
11.9 5.0 82.3 13.9 12.9 1,062
6.0 NR 88.3b 14.6 13.4 1,144b
Almeida et al., 2017
8.2 NR 93.3a 15.0 13.7 1,262a
5.7 4.2 88.1 15.1 13.8 1,219
Almeida et al., 2018
7.5 4.2 88.2 15.3 13.8 1,220
6.0 5.0 92.0 14.0 13.3 1,227
Gianluppi et al., 2019 – P1
9.5 5.7 86.1 13.8 13.2 1,135
6.0 4.5 93.4 15.2 14.3 1,340
Gianluppi et al., 2019 – P2+
9.5 4.6 92.6 15.5 14.5 1,340
6.6 4.7 97.4 15.3 14.0 1,372
Lu et al., 20212
10.0 4.7 95.7 15.6 14.3 1,362
a,b
Means with different superscripts within column and experiment differ, P < 0.05.
1Number of piglets born alive for every 100 sows bred calculated as BA index = farrowing rate, % × piglet born alive, n × 100.
2
The sows in control group were fed 6.6 lbs of gestation diet/d; and sows in treatment group were fed 10 lbs of gestation diet/d and 0.44 lb of
glucose/day.

J-3
Recent trials show no benefit in feeding a lactation diet during the WEI (Figure J2. Almeida et al., 2018; Gianluppi et al., 2019).
Figure J2. Total Born Piglets from Sows in Good Body Condition Fed a Gestation or Lactation Diet during the Wean-to-
Estrus Interval (Almeida et al., 2018)
PIC® recommends feeding 6 lbs per day of a conventional gestation diet to sows with a caliper reading of ideal. Only
provide ad libitum feed to sows with caliper reading of thin. Avoid skipping meal on weaning day since it negatively
impacts lutenizing hormone secretion compromising sow fertility. It is advisable to group sows in the weaner row based
on their body condition. Weaned sow feeding management requires a balance between providing enough fresh feed and
avoiding waste and spoilage. Split the daily feed allowance of the weaned sow into 2 to 3 meals.

J-4 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Section K
Nursery Pig
The nursery nutrition program focuses on maximizing feed intake in the first week
after weaning, preferably utilizing highly digestible diets. The goal is to transition
pigs to simpler diets as quickly as possible.
• Age at weaning and high feed intake after weaning are critical to maximize performance in
the nursery phase.
• Do not feed dairy products and specialty protein sources past 42 days of age.
• Meet the Lys requirement in the last phase of the nursery since this represents the
greatest portion of nursery growth.
• Adequate amino acid ratios are especially critical in diets formulated at or below the SID
Lys requirement.
• The sodium requirements of nursery pigs as recommended by NRC 2012 are sound. Often
in today’s diets, more salt needs to be added to reach NRC levels because alternative
lactose sources and less animal proteins are used.

K-1
Weaned Pig
Weaning age is an important factor because it directly impacts weaning weight, post-weaning growth performance, and
livability. Studies on weaning age have shown the benefits of increasing age to improve subsequent growth performance,
survival, intestinal barrier function, and immunological response (Main et al., 2004; Moeser et al., 2007). An older
weaned pig is physiologically more mature and better able to transition to dry feed. Due to the pressure to reduce
antibiotic use in the swine industry, the importance of weaning age will continue to increase.
Recently, Faccin et al. (2020) evaluated the effects of increasing weaning age (18.5, 21.5, 24.5 d) and feed antibiotic use
on pig performance in a commercial production system. The authors did not observe any interactions between the two
factors, and both contributed to improve performance and weight sold per pig weaned. Each day increase in weaning
age resulted in an additional 1.55 lb per pig sold.
Maximizing feed intake of weaned pigs is essential as they are extremely dependent on energy intake. Increasing feed
intake during the first week after weaning increases digesta flow, decreases proliferation of bacteria in the gut, and
reduces diarrhea incidence.
It is crucial to provide ad libitum access to feed and water immediately upon arrival. A large epidemiological study
indicated that low feed intake after weaning increases the likelihood of developing diarrhea compared to high feed intake
(Madec et al., 1998). Therefore, age at weaning and high feed intake after weaning are critical to maximize performance
in the nursery phase. For information on management aspects that improve feed intake after weaning, such as mat and
gruel feeding, please click here to access the PIC® Wean to Finish Manual.
Phase Feeding
Based on the development of weaned piglets’ digestive system, three diets are typically fed during the nursery period.
The feeding duration of each phase will vary according to weaning age (Table K1). In general, PIC® recommends feeding
phases 1 and 2 to pigs no longer than 42 d of age. This is due to the high costs of dairy products and specialty proteins
in early nursery diets. The nursery feeding program corresponds to approximately 10 to 15% of the total feed cost to
produce a pig.
Table K1. Feeding Duration Recommendations for Nursery Diets According to Weaning Age1
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Weaning age,
Weaning to ~16 lbs ~16 to 25 lbs 25 to 50 lbs
days
Duration, d Exit age, day Duration, d Exit age, day Duration, d Exit age, day
18 to 20 8 26 to 28 14 to 16 42 21 63
21 to 22 7 28 to 29 13 to 14 42 21 63
23 to 24 6 29 to 30 12 to 13 42 21 63
25 to 28 5 30 to 33 9 to 12 42 21 63
Feed budget will depend on feed intake, which may vary according to management, delivery logistics, feeder design, health status, etc.
1

K-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Phase 1 – Weaning to ~16 lbs
Feeding newly weaned pigs requires a diet with greater inclusions of highly digestible carbohydrates and protein sources
to maximize feed intake while matching their digestive capabilities. This diet typically has a greater cost per ton than
subsequent phases.
The most commonly used highly digestible carbohydrates are sources of lactose, such as crystalline lactose, dried whey,
and whey permeate. High lactose levels of 14% or greater are desired but need to be used for a short time due to the
high cost. Dried whey is typically preferred over whey permeate because of more consistent quality; however, high-
quality whey permeate can be the sole source of lactose. Other highly digestible carbohydrates sources can replace part
of the lactose if economical and quality is assured (i.e., maltose, dextrose, maltodextrin, micronized corn, micronized
rice, oat groats, etc; Guo et al., 2015). Care must be taken with the source of lactose and, generally, edible-grade lactose
sources are the preferred option (Bergstrom et al., 2007).
Weaned pigs have a transitory hypersensitivity to soybean meal (Engle, 1994). A practical maximum is 20% of SBM in this
phase to help adapt to simpler diets with greater SBM inclusion in the subsequent phases. Plant protein sources typically
provide most of the protein in nursery diets, but feed grade amino acids and animal protein sources can reduce soybean
meal inclusion in early nursery diets. Soy protein concentrate can be used up to 14% and fermented soybean meal can
be included from 6 to 15% without adversely affecting growth and intake (Cho et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2010; Kim et al.,
2010). One study, however, indicated marginally lower overall nursery feed intake feeding fermented soybean meal at
an 8% inclusion rate. Fish meal can be included at approximately 3 to 6% to stimulate feed intake in early nursery diets
(Jones et al., 2018). Be aware fish meal quality can vary significantly among sources (Kim and Easter, 2001), with mineral
and fat content being an indicator of fish meal feeding value (e.g., maximum 20% ash and minimum 7.5% fat).
Phase 2 – ~16 to 25 lbs

Reduce diet complexity in phase 2, with diets comprised of a grain source, soybean meal, and lower levels of lactose and
specialty protein sources. Lactose is typically decreased to approximately 7%, while SBM level are usually increased to a
maximum of 28% of the diet (Jang et al., 2019). With the wide scale availability and lower cost of feed grade tryptophan,
valine and isoleucine specialty proteins can be economically reduced or eliminated in this diet.
Phase 3 – 25 to 50 lbs
The phase 3 diet is primarily comprised of a grain source and soybean meal with no inclusion of lactose or specialty
protein sources. It contains similar ingredients to grow-finish pig diets. Nursery growth potential is the greatest during
this phase and it is crucial to meet their nutrient needs, especially Lys.

K-3
Other Considerations
Sometimes it’s thought that extra gain in the nursery period multiplies itself in the finisher period. The extra gain
achieved in the nursery from nutritional interventions may be maintained throughout grow-finish but does not likely
increase. Several studies have shown that the use of complex diets increases feed intake and growth rate in young
pigs (Wolter et al., 2003; Skinner et al., 2014; Lunedo et al., 2020). However, the benefit gained in the nursery did not
increase through the finisher (Whang et al, 2000; Wolter et al., 2003; Skinner et al., 2014).
Increasing the dietary Lys and other AA in nursery diets have resulted in improved growth rate and feed efficiency
(Kendall et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2014). However, recent research has demonstrated that nursery pigs can also
experience compensatory growth after a short period of AA deficiency (Nemecheck et al., 2018; Totafurno et al., 2019).
Practical implications are that dietary Lys can be reduced during the first two to three weeks post-weaning, lowering feed
costs and crude protein content of the diet, which could positively impact gut health (Heo et al., 2009).
Research has shown that the inclusion of feed-grade AA can be used as a partial replacement of specialty proteins as
long as the SID Lys to crude protein ratio is kept below 6.40 (Millet et al., 2018). The use of adequate amino acid ratios is
especially critical in diets formulated at or below the SID Lys requirement (Clark et al., 2017a).
Dietary tryptophan to Lys ratio has a significant impact on feed intake and growth rate. Depending on a system’s specific
scenario of fixed time or fixed weight, varying tryptophan to Lys ratio could greatly impact profitability. Refer to Section
A for detailed information of the optimum SID tryptophan to Lys ratio tool. Besides protein synthesis, threonine is also
involved in gut health and immunity (Ruth and Field, 2013). Dirty environment and health challenges may influence
the threonine requirement. PIC® has updated the dietary threonine to Lys ratio for nursery pigs based on a recent
study conducted under commercial conditions (De Jong et al., 2018). Also, several other dose-response studies have
determined the amino acid requirements of nursery pigs (Gonçalves et al., 2015; Jayaraman et al., 2015; Clark et al.,
2017b; Kahindi et al., 2017; Cemin et al., 2018) and can be used as a reference to set the recommendations for AA ratios.
For more details on amino acids, refer to Chapters A and C.
The sodium (Na) requirements of nursery pigs from 12 to 15, 15 to 25, and 25 to 50 lbs are 0.40, 0.35, and 0.28%,
respectively (NRC, 2012; Shawk et al., 2018). Often in today’s diets, more salt must be added to meet the pig Na needs
because of less use of fish and animal proteins. The lactose source seldom will supply all the Na required. It is also
important to minimize excess calcium in diets for young pigs to avoid a reduction in performance, especially when
phosphorus levels are at or below the requirements (Gonzalez-Vega et al., 2016a,b; Merriman et al., 2017, Wu et al.,
2018). For more details on calcium and phosphorus requirements, refer to Section D.

K-4 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Section L
Grow-Finish Pig
The goal for grow-finish diets is to maximize return on investment.

• PIC® Lys and phosphorus biological recommendations are updated based on recent
research.
• New tools to determine the most cost-effective energy, Lys, tryptophan, and phosphorus
levels are available, click here to access those tools.
• Recent trials have shown that excess leucine may require adjustments to isoleucine,
valine, and tryptophan ratios.
• Proactively act on strategies to increase market weight for anticipated times of high
profitability with the PIC® Seasonal Diet Formulation tool.

L-1
Formulating Grow-Finish Diets
The steps in diet formulation for finishing pigs comply with the principles described in Section A of this manual, which
are:
1. Determine the Optimal Lys:Calorie Ratio

The biological SID Lys requirement tool helps users determine the SID Lys level that maximizes the growth rate of pigs
within a given body weight range. An update of the PIC® SID Lys biological tool allows it to be applicable from 25 to
330 lbs. The SID Lys economic calculator helps users to compare the economics of their existing Lys levels with the
biological Lys requirements. Refer to Section C for detailed information on the biological SID Lys requirement tool and
the SID Lys economic calculator.
2. Determine the Most Economical Energy Level

Energy is the major cost of any grow-finish diet and does affect growth performance significantly. The optimum NE
tool helps users determine the dietary NE content that yields the greatest income over total cost on a live or carcass
basis. Refer to Section B for detailed information on the optimum net energy tool.
3. Determine the Ratio for the Other Amino Acids

Dietary tryptophan to Lys ratio has a significant impact on feed intake and growth rate. Depending on a system’s
specific scenario of fixed time or fixed weight, varying tryptophan to Lys ratio could greatly impact profitability. Refer
to Section A for detailed information on the optimum SID tryptophan to Lys ratio tool.
Using the fibrous by-products from corn or wheat processing in grow-finish diets is a common practice to reduce feed
cost. However, greater dietary fiber levels may influence the optimal levels of threonine. Mathai et al. (2016) reported
the threonine to Lys ratio for maximizing ADG increased from 66 to 71% when dietary NDF levels increased from 8.3
to 16.6% in 55 to 110 lbs pigs.
Valine is commonly considered to be the fifth limiting amino acid in corn-soybean meal-based diets for finishing pigs
(Figueroa et al., 2003). A recent study reported that 68% and 63% of SID Val:Lys ratio achieved 99% of the maximum
mean ADG and G:F for 55- to 100-lb pigs (Gonçalves et al., 2018).
Increasing the dietary SID leucine to Lys ratio from 100 to 300% linearly reduced growth rate, feed intake, and
worsened feed efficiency (Kwon and Stein, 2019; Kwon et al., 2019). Leucine is usually in excess in corn-based diets
due to its high concentrations in corn or corn by-products. A meta-analysis with 44 trials concluded that the addition
of valine, isoleucine, and tryptophan, alone or in combination, has the potential to mitigate the adverse effects of
excess leucine on growth performance (Cemin et al., 2019). Increasing dietary SID tryptophan to Lys ratio alone only
partially alleviated the negative impact of excessive dietary leucine. Example of adjustments in branched chain amino
acid ratios according to leucine levels is shown in Section R.
The suggested ratios of dietary amino acid to Lys are in the nutrient specification tables at the end of this manual.
4. Determine the Phosphorus Level

Phosphorus is the third most expensive nutrient in swine diets. Phosphorus is required for growth, lean tissue
deposition, and bone mineralization (Berndt and Kumar, 2009). The optimum STTD P tool determines the
biological requirement and helps users to compare the economics of their existing STTD P levels with the biological
requirement. Refer to Section D for detailed information of the optimum STTD phosphorus tool.

L-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
5. Set Levels of Calcium, Vitamins, Trace Minerals, Salt, and Other Ingredients.
The ratio between calcium and phosphorus generally determines dietary calcium level. Vier et al. (2019b) reported
the analyzed Ca to analyzed P ratio that maximized ADG for 57 to 280 lbs pigs was 1.63:1 and 1.38:1 when diets were
with or without 454 FYT/lb phytase, respectively.
Adding vitamins in diets at levels excess to NRC (2012) requirement estimates is a common industry practice. Recent
studies have refined vitamin levels needed for performance (Tuffo et al., 2019; Thompson et al., 2020). Vitamin
requirements in the nutrient specifications table in this manual are based on the results of these trials.
In addition to the above five steps of formulating grow-finish diets, adjusting diet formulations based on seasonal
variation of performance and market pricing could help maximize profitability. Refer to Section A for detailed
information on the PIC® Seasonal Diet Formulation tool.
Phase Feeding
Phase feeding represents a strategy commonly used across the swine industry to closely meet the nutrient requirements
of grow-finish pigs within a given weight range. There has been an interest in simplifying phase feeding programs due
to the benefits in diet manufacturing, delivery, and storage logistics. Simplification could result in improved feed mill
efficiency (Moore et al., 2013).
Menegat et al. (2020a) reported that a single-phase feeding program compromised grow-finish pigs’ performance
compared to multi-phase feeding programs (4, 3, or 2 phases). However, overall growth performance, carcass
characteristics, and income over feed cost (IOFC) were maintained when reducing dietary phases from four to three to
two when providing 100% of the PIC® recommended SID Lys levels.
Performance could be compromised if the initial body weight and feed intake are lower than expected. Other
considerations would be the degree of SID Lys restriction, the duration of the restriction, the ratio between the time of
restriction and time of recovery, and the SID Lys adequacy in the recovery diets (Menegat et al., 2020b). The financial
implications under varying production and economic situations should dictate the implementation of fewer phases.
A feed budget is used to properly match the pig’s requirement by delivering the right feed at the right time, independent
of number of dietary phases. Thus, a feed budget is an important tool to minimize the chances of under- or over-feeding
nutrients. To help determine the correct amount of each feed per pig according to dietary energy levels and phases,
target market weight, and customer specific performance access the PIC® Feed Budget tool (click here).
PIC® Adjusted Caloric Efficiency Calculator

Multiple factors influence the feed efficiency of wean to finish pigs. Four major factors affecting feed efficiency are:
dietary energy level, genetics, entry and final body weight, and mortality.
Dietary energy may change through time because of the varying ingredient pricing. A one percentage change of dietary
energy level is expected to change feed efficiency by 1% (Euken, 2012). Adjusting for dietary energy level is important
in comparing close-out performance. Offspring from different genetics (sirelines) have different growth rate and feed
efficiency. Using sireline-specific coefficients to adjust for entry and final weights helps in improving the accuracy.
Adjusting feed efficiency for final weight in the nursery phase and entry and final weight in the finishing phase is
common to account for differences in feed efficiency due to differences in body weight. If assuming mortality occurs at
the mid-point of the finishing phase, feed efficiency becomes poorer by 0.5 to 0.8% for every 1% increase in mortality
(Tokach et al., 2014). Click here to access the PIC® Adjusted Caloric Efficiency calculator. Refer to the KSU Feed Efficiency
Calculator to consider other factors that can impact feed efficiency, such as diet form, seasonality, temperature, and
ractopamine use (if allowed).

L-3
Section M
PIC® Nutrient Specifications for Mature Boars (As-Fed)
ITEMa UNIT
Standardized ileal digestible amino acids
Lys:Calorie NE g/Mcal 2.64
Lys:Calorie ME g/Mcal 1.95
Methionine + Cysteine:Lys Ratio 70
Threonine:Lys Ratio 74
Tryptophan:Lys Ratio 20
Valine:Lys Ratio 67
Isoleucine:Lys Ratio 58
Leucine:Lys Ratio 65
Histidine:Lys Ratio 30
Phenylalanine + Tyrosine:Lys Ratio 114
L-Lys-HCl, max.b % 0.25
Minerals
STTD P:Calorie NEc g/Mcal 1.87
STTD P:Calorie MEc g/Mcal 1.38
Av. P:Calorie NEc,d g/Mcal 1.78
Av. P:Calorie MEc,d g/Mcal 1.31
Analyzed Ca:Analyzed Pe Ratio 1.50
Sodiumf % 0.22
Chloride % 0.22
Added trace mineralsg
Zinc ppm 125
Iron ppm 100
Manganese ppm 50
Copper ppm 15
Iodine ppm 0.35
Seleniumh ppm 0.30
Added vitaminsg,i per lb diet
Vitamin A IU/lb 4500
Vitamin D IU/lb 900
Vitamin E IU/lb 30
Vitamin K mg/lb 2.0
Cholinej mg/lb 300
Niacin mg/lb 20
Riboflavin mg/lb 4.5
Pantothenic acid mg/lb 15

M-1 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
ITEMa UNIT
Added vitamins g,i
per lb diet
Vitamin B12 mcg/lb 17
Folic Acid mcg/lb 600
Biotin mcg/lb 100
Thiamine mg/lb 1.0
Pyridoxine mg/lb 1.5
Recommended specifications
Neutral detergent fiber (NDF), min. % 11
Linoleic acid % 1.9
aThese specifications are based on nutrient intake per day and should be used as a guideline. They require adjustment for feed intake, local
conditions, legislation, and markets. They require adjustment for feed intake, local conditions, and markets. Click here to access the PIC®
Optimum Boar Feeding tool to adjust the nutrient specifications based on dietary energy concentration.
bL-Lys-HCl maximum inclusions are suggested based on corn and soybean meal-based diets and are to be used as a guideline. Inclusion rates
above the suggested maximum levels could be used as long as all other amino acid to Lys ratios meet PIC® recommendations.
cPhosphorus values are considering release due to phytase; however, release values need to be based on suppliers’ recommendation established
from peer-reviewed scientific research. STTD P = Standardized total tract digestible phosphorus; Av. P= available phosphorus.
dThe requirements for available P are estimated as 95% of the STTD P recommendations in a corn-soybean meal boar stud diet with supplemental
phytase, using STTD P coefficient and P bioavailability from NRC (1998 and 2012).
eIf the boar stud diet is formulated without the inclusion of phytase, the recommended analyzed Ca:analyzed P ratio is 1.25.
fIf sodium levels are not known in major ingredients use at least 80% of sodium coming from sodium chloride.
gThe values represent micronutrient supplementation without giving credit for ingredient content.
hOrganic selenium is commonly used for boar diets. However, evidence for benefits compared to inorganic supplementation is limited.
iPelleting and (or) expanding decreases vitamin stability by 10-12% and 15-20% respectively. Consult vitamin manufacturer to verify their specific
vitamin stability under pelleting conditions so additional fortification can be made as required.
jAssuming a typical corn and soybean meal-based diet provides 600 mg of choline per pound.

M-2
Section N
PIC® Nutrient Specifications for Developing Gilts (As-Fed)
Body weight, lbs
ITEMa UNIT 200 to
50 to 130 130 to 200
Breedingb
Lys:Calorie NEc g/Mcal 4.29 3.46 2.51
Lys:Calorie MEc g/Mcal 3.15 2.57 1.86
Methionine + Cysteine:Lys Ratio 58 58 58
Threonine:Lys Ratio 65 65 66
Tryptophan:Lys Ratio 18 18 18
Valine:Lys Ratio 68 68 68
Isoleucine:Lys Ratio 56 56 56
Leucine:Lys Ratio 101 101 102
Histidine:Lys Ratio 34 34 34
Phenylalanine + Tyrosine:Lys Ratio 94 95 96
L-Lys-HCI, max.d % 0.40 0.32 0.27
Minerals
STTD P:Calorie NEe g/Mcal 1.64 1.37 1.09
STTD P:Calorie MEe g/Mcal 1.23 1.04 0.84
Av. P:Calorie NEe,f g/Mcal 1.41 1.17 0.94
Av. P:Calorie MEe,f g/Mcal 1.05 0.89 0.73
Analyzed Ca:Analyzed P, rangeg Ratio 1.25 - 1.50 1.25 - 1.50 1.25 - 1.50
Sodiumh % 0.25 0.25 0.25
Chloride % 0.25 0.25 0.25
Added trace mineralsi
Zinc ppm 125 125 125
Iron ppm 100 100 100
Manganese ppm 50 50 50
Copper ppm 15 15 15
Iodine ppm 0.35 0.35 0.35
Selenium ppm 0.30 0.30 0.30
Added vitaminsi,j per lb diet
Vitamin A IU/lb 4500 4500 4500
Vitamin D IU/lb 900 900 900
Vitamin E IU/lb 30 30 30
Vitamin K mg/lb 2.0 2.0 2.0
Cholinek mg/lb 300 300 300
Niacin mg/lb 20 20 20

N-1 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Body weight, lbs
ITEMa UNIT 200 to
50 to 130 130 to 200
Breedingb
Added vitaminsi,j per lb diet
Riboflavin mg/lb 4.5 4.5 4.5
Pantothenic acid mg/lb 15 15 15
Vitamin B12 mcg/lb 17 17 17
Folic Acid mcg/lb 600 600 600
Biotin mcg/lb 100 100 100
Thiamine mg/lb 1.0 1.0 1.0
Pyridoxine mg/lb 1.5 1.5 1.5
a
These guidelines are based on a 3-phase gilt development program. The number of phases and body weight ranges can be varied. These
specifications are based on nutrient intake per day and should be used as a guideline. They require adjustment for feed intake, local conditions,
legislation, and markets. Click here to access the PIC® Recommendations for Developing Gilts tool for nutrient recommendations according to your
specific feeding program.
bAfter approximately 200 lbs of body weight, feed a gestation diet to avoid having to manufacture another specialized gilt development diet.
cPlease click here to access the PIC® Nutrient Recommendations for Developing Gilts tool to obtain the recommended SID Lys to energy ratio to
your specific situation.
dL-Lys-HCl maximum inclusions are suggested based on corn and soybean meal-based diets and are to be used as a guideline. Inclusion rates above
the suggested maximum levels could be used as long as all other amino acid to Lys ratios meet PIC® recommendations.
ePhosphorus values are considering release due to phytase; however, release values need to be based on suppliers’ recommendation established
from peer-reviewed scientific research. STTD P = Standardized total tract digestible phosphorus; Av. P = available P.
fThe recommendations for available P are estimated as 86% of the STTD P recommendations in a corn-soybean meal-gilt development-diet using
STTD P coefficient and P bioavailability from NRC (1998 and 2012). Please go to the PIC® Nutrient Recommendations for Developing Gilts tool to
obtain the recommended STTD P or Av. P to energy ratio to your specific situation.
gThe analyzed Ca:analyzed P ratio is determined based on Vier et al., (2019c) considering P levels at PIC® requirement.
hIf sodium levels are not known in major ingredients use at least 80% of sodium coming from sodium chloride.
iThe values represent micronutrient supplementation without giving credit for ingredient content. The added vitamin and trace mineral (VTM)
recommendations are identical to sow levels. However, if sow-level of VTM is not available, the VTM levels recommended for commercial pigs can
be used for developing gilts up to 130 lbs.
jPelleting and (or) expanding decreases vitamin stability by 10-12% and 15-20% respectively. Consult vitamin manufacturer to verify their specific
kAssuming a typical corn and soybean meal-based diet provides 600 mg of choline per pound.

N-2
Section O
PIC® Nutrient Specifications for Gestating Gilts and Sows (As Fed)
ITEMa UNIT
Daily energy intakeb NE ME
Fat sows Mcal/d 3.7 4.9
Giltsc and ideal sows Mcal/d 4.4 5.9
Thin sows Mcal/d 6.1 8.0
Estimated caliper changed
Fat, throughout gestation units -1.0
Ideal, throughout gestation units 1.7
Thin, for an average of 30-day period units 2.0
Lys, min g/d 11.0
Methionine + Cysteine:Lys Ratio 70
Threonine:Lys Ratio 76
Tryptophan:Lys Ratio 19
Valine:Lys Ratio 71
Isoleucine:Lys Ratio 58
Leucine:Lys Ratio 92
Histidine:Lys Ratio 35
Phenylalanine + Tyrosine:Lys Ratio 96
L-Lys-HCl, max.e % 0.25
Minerals
STTD P:Calorie NEf g/Mcal 1.84
STTD P:Calorie MEf g/Mcal 1.36
Av. P:Calorie NEf,g g/Mcal 1.74
Av. P:Calorie MEf,g g/Mcal 1.29
Analyzed Ca:Analyzed Ph Ratio 1.50
Sodiumi % 0.24
Chloride % 0.24
Added trace mineralsj
Zinc ppm 125
Iron ppm 100
Manganese ppm 50
Copper ppm 15
Iodine ppm 0.35
Selenium ppm 0.30

O-1 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
ITEMa UNIT
Added vitamins j,k
per lb diet
Vitamin A IU/lb 4500
Vitamin D IU/lb 900
Vitamin E IU/lb 30
Vitamin K mg/lb 2.0
Cholinel mg/lb 300
Niacin mg/lb 20
Riboflavin mg/lb 4.5
Pantothenic acid mg/lb 15
Vitamin B12 mcg/lb 17
Folic Acid mcg/lb 600
Biotin mcg/lb 100
Thiamine mg/lb 1.0
Pyridoxine mg/lb 1.5
conditions, legislation, and markets. Click here to access Dynamic Feeding Program for PIC Females tool to adjust the nutrient specification based
on dietary energy concentration. Be aware that sows housed below their thermal neutral zone require more energy.
bNet energy (NE) was estimated using a conversion factor of 0.75 from metabolizable energy (ME). For different diet compositions this may vary
(i.e., 0.73 to 0.76) depending on the ingredients used. If gestation diets are pelleted, consider 3% reduction of feed allowance.
cPIC recommends energy allowance of 4.4 Mcal NE/d or 5.9 Mcal ME/d for gilts throughout the entire gestation regardless of body condition.
dThe estimated caliper score change is based on a sow herd assuming an average body weight of 440 lbs. The regression equation was reported by
Knauer et al., (2020): caliper score change per day = 1.35 × (ME intake, Mcal/d) ÷ [(Body weight, lb) ÷ 2.2046]0.75 – 0.1332.
eL-Lys-HCl maximum inclusions are recommended based on corn and soybean meal-based diets and are to be used as a guideline. There should be
no constraint on including synthetic amino acids in diets as long as there are no other limiting nutrients.
fPhosphorus values are considering release due to phytase; however, release values need to be based on suppliers’ recommendation established
from peer-reviewed scientific research. STTD P = Standardized total tract digestible phosphorus. Av. P= available phosphorus.
gThe requirements for Av. P are estimated as 95% of the STTD P recommendations in a corn-soybean meal gestation diet with supplemental
hIf the gestation diet is formulated without the inclusion of phytase, the recommended analyzed Ca:analyzed P ratio is 1.25.
iIf sodium levels are not known in major ingredients use at least 80% of sodium coming from sodium chloride.
jThe values represent micronutrients supplementation without giving credit for ingredient content.
kPelleting and (or) expanding decreases vitamin stability by 10-12% and 15-20% respectively. Consult vitamin manufacturer to verify their specific
lAssuming a typical corn and soybean meal-based diet provides 600 mg of choline per pound.

O-2
Section P
PIC® Nutrient Specifications for Lactating Gilts and Sows (As-Fed)
ITEMa UNIT GILTS SOWS HERD
Net weight body lossb % <10 <10 <10
Fat loss, Maxb mm 0-2 0-2 0-2
Expected caliper lossc units --- --- 2.3
Litter growthd lb/d 5.5 6.0 5.9
Daily net energy (NE) intakee,f Mcal/d 12.5 15.5 14.9
Daily metabolizable energy (ME) intakef Mcal/d 16.9 20.9 20.1
Average feed intaked,g lb/d 11.1 13.7 13.2
Daily Lys intake, single lactation diet g/d 50.0 62.0 59.5
Daily Lys intake, two lactation dietsh g/d 59.0 56.5 ---
Methionine + Cysteine:Lys Ratio 53 53 53
Threonine:Lys Ratio 64 64 64
Tryptophan:Lys Ratio 19 19 19
Valine:Lys Ratio 64 64 64
Isoleucine:Lys Ratio 56 56 56
Leucine:Lys Ratio 114 114 114
Histidine:Lys Ratio 40 40 40
Phenylalanine + Tyrosine:Lys Ratio 113 113 113
L-Lys-HCl, max.i % 0.45 0.45 0.45
Minerals
STTD P:Calorie NEj g/Mcal 1.90 1.67 1.72
STTD P:Calorie MEj g/Mcal 1.44 1.27 1.30
Av. P:Calorie NEj,k g/Mcal 1.73 1.52 1.56
Av. P:Calorie MEj,k g/Mcal 1.31 1.15 1.19
Analyzed Ca:Analyzed Pl Ratio 1.50 1.50 1.50
Sodiumm % 0.27 0.23 0.24
Chloride % 0.27 0.23 0.24
Added trace mineralsn
Zinc ppm 125 125 125
Iron ppm 100 100 100
Manganese ppm 50 50 50
Copper ppm 15 15 15
Iodine ppm 0.35 0.35 0.35
Selenium ppm 0.30 0.30 0.30

P-1 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
ITEMa UNIT GILTS SOWS HERD
Added vitamins n,o
per lb diet
Vitamin A IU/lb 4500 4500 4500
Vitamin D IU/lb 900 900 900
Vitamin E IU/lb 30 30 30
Vitamin K mg/lb 2.0 2.0 2.0
Cholinep mg/lb 300 300 300
Niacin mg/lb 20 20 20
Riboflavin mg/lb 4.5 4.5 4.5
Pantothenic acid mg/lb 15 15 15
Vitamin B12 mcg/lb 17 17 17
Folic Acid mcg/lb 600 600 600
Biotin mcg/lb 100 100 100
Thiamine mg/lb 1.0 1.0 1.0
Pyridoxine mg/lb 1.5 1.5 1.5
a
These specifications are based on nutrient intake per day and should be used as a guideline. They require adjustment for feed intake, local
conditions, legislation, and markets.
b
Assumptions: Gilt - 300 lb body weight (BW) at breeding and 75 lb net maternal gain; Sow - 400 lb BW at breeding and 20 lb net maternal gain;
Post-farrowing weight of 385 lb; Weight loss of 22 lb.
c
Expected caliper loss is estimated based on units of caliper measured at farrowing according to data collected at a 4,500 sow farm unit in Spain
(Huerta et al., 2021). Regression equation if using the old version of the caliper: Caliper unit loss = 6.253704 + (-0.874766 × CaliperFarrow)
+ (0.042414 × CaliperFarrow2). Regression equation if using the new version of the caliper: Caliper unit loss = 6.253704 + [-0.874766 ×
(CaliperFarrow + 4)] + [0.042414 × (CaliperFarrow + 4)2].
d
Assuming parity structure of 20% gilts and 80% sows.
e
Net energy was estimated using a conversion factor of 0.74 from metabolizable energy. For different diet compositions this may vary (i.e., 0.73 to
0.76) depending on the ingredients used.
f
Energy intake per day is only a reference and does not represent a recommendation.
g
Average daily feed intake is only a reference for a 21-d lactation and does not represent a recommendation. It assumes gilts are eating on
average 19% less than sows. Please click here to access a PIC® Dynamic Feeding Program for Females tool to adjust the nutrient specifications
based on the average lactation feed intake.
h
In situations where a gilt-specific lactation diet is applicable, such as parity segregation or startups, consider feeding 59.0 g of SID Lys per day
for primiparous sows for maximum lactation performance; and feeding 56.5 g of SID Lys per day for multiparous sows for improved cost-
effectiveness.
i
L-Lys-HCl maximum inclusions are recommended based on corn and soybean meal-based diets and are to be used as a guideline. There should
be no constraint on including synthetic amino acids in diets as long as there are no other limiting nutrients. Soybean meal inclusions of over 30%
have shown to reduce lactation feed intake (Gourley et al., 2020c).
j
Phosphorus values are considering release due to phytase; however, release values need to be based on suppliers’ recommendation established
from peer-reviewed scientific research. STTD P = Standardized total tract digestible phosphorus. Av. P= available phosphorus.
k
The requirements for Av. P are estimated as 90% of the STTD P recommendations in a corn-soybean meal lactation diet with supplemental
l
If the lactation diet is formulated without the inclusion of phytase, the recommended analyzed Ca:analyzed P ratio is 1.25.
m
If sodium levels are not known in major ingredients use at least 80% of sodium coming from sodium chloride.
n
The values represent micronutrient supplementation without giving credit for ingredient content.
o
Pelleting and (or) expanding decreases vitamin stability by 10-12% and 15-20% respectively. Consult vitamin manufacturer to verify their specific
p
Assuming a typical corn and soybean meal-based diet provides 600 mg of choline per pound.

P-2
Section Q
PIC® Nutrient Specifications for Prestart Pigs (As-Fed)
Body Weight, lbs
ITEMa UNIT
Weaning to ~16 ~ 16 to 25
Dietary energy level (Based on NRC 2012 ingredient values)
Net energyb,c kcal/lb 1155 1155
Metabolizable energy b
kcal/lb 1540 1540
Lysd % 1.46 1.42
Methionine + Cysteine:Lys Ratio 58 58
Threonine:Lys Ratio 65 65
Tryptophan:Lys Ratio 20 19
Valine:Lys Ratio 67 67
Isoleucine:Lyse Ratio 55 55
Leucine:Lys Ratio 100 100
Histidine:Lys Ratio 32 32
Phenylalanine + Tyrosine:Lys Ratio 92 92
Minerals
Av. phosphorusf,g % 0.45 0.40
STTD phosphorus f,g
% 0.50 0.45
Analyzed calciumg % 0.65 0.65
Sodiumh % 0.40 0.35
Chloride % 0.35 - 0.40 0.32
Added trace mineralsi
Zincj ppm 130 130
Ironk ppm 130 130
Manganese ppm 50 50
Copperl ppm 18 18
Iodine ppm 0.65 0.65
Selenium ppm 0.30 0.30
Added vitamins i,m
per lb diet
Vitamin A IU/lb 2270 2270
Vitamin D IU/lb 730 730
Vitamin E IU/lb 23 23
Vitamin K mg/lb 1.4 1.4
Cholineⁿ mg/lb --- ---
Niacin mg/lb 23 23
Riboflavin mg/lb 3.6 3.6
Pantothenic acid mg/lb 13 13
Vitamin B12 mcg/lb 18 18

Q-1 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Body Weight, lbs
ITEMa UNIT
Weaning to ~16 ~ 16 to 25
Recommended specifications
Soybean meal, maxo % 20 28
SID Lys:Crude protein, maxp % 6.4 6.4
Highly digestible proteinq % 5 - 10 3-5
Highly digestible carbohydrater % 15.0 7.5
bEnergy levels are guidelines and should be adjusted according to market price and specific farm scenario.
cNet energy was estimated using a conversion factor of 0.75 from metabolizable energy. For different diet compositions this may vary (i.e., 0.73 to
0.76) depending on the ingredients used.
dThe minimum dietary SID Lys level for 12 to 25 lb pigs is 1.35% if dietary SID Lys in the late nursery phase meets PIC® recommendation.
eDiet with < 2% blood cells. If greater than 2% blood cells the SID Isoleucine:Lys ratio should be 60.
fAv. phosphorus=available phosphorus; STTD phosphorus=Standardized total tract digestible phosforus.
gCalcium and phosphorus release values should be considered only if enough substrate is available based on diet formulation.
hIf sodium levels are not known in major ingredients use at least 80% of sodium coming from sodium chloride.
iThe values represent micronutrient supplementation without giving credit for ingredient content.
jMaximum duration from weaning to 25 lb or 42 d of age. Pharmacological levels of zinc to improve growth performance follow: > 16 lb use 3000
PPM; and for 16-25 lb use 2000 PPM. Different countries have different regulations regarding the use of pharacological levels of zinc, follow your
country’s regulation.
kMaximum supplemental iron is 200 ppm because of the substantial iron content of di-calcium phosphate and because high iron intake
encourages E. coli proliferation in the young pig.
lSupplemental copper up to 250 ppm could be used to improve growth performance if pharmacological Zn levels are not allowed. Inorganic forms
assumed. Different countries have different regulations regarding the use of copper as growth promoter, please follow your country’s regulation.
mPelleting and (or) expanding decreases vitamin stability by 10-12% and 15-20% repectively. Consult vitamin manufacturer to verify their specific
vitamin stability under pelleting conditions so additional modification can be made as required.
nA total level of 600 mg of choline per lb should be achieved.
oSuggested levels for commercial production and good to high health. High health pigs can tolerate higher levels of SBM (30% for 16-25 lb).
pBased on the results of Millet et al. (2018).
qFor example, high quality fish meal, animal plasma, blood meal, enzymatically treated soybean meal, etc.;
rThe most common highly digestible carbohydrate source is edible-grade lactose. Other highly digestible carbohydrates source can replace part of
lactose if economical (i.e., maltose, dextrose, micronized corn, micronized rice, maltodextrin, etc.).

Q-2
Section R
PIC® Nutrient Specifications for Late Nursery and
Grow-Finish Gilts and Barrows (As-Fed)
Body Weight, lbs
230-Market with
ITEM UNIT 130- 180- 230-
25-50 50-90 90-130 Ractopaminer
180 230 Market
< 21 D > 21 D
Standardized Ileal Digestible amino acids
Lys:Calorie NEb g/Mcal 5.32 4.74 4.11 3.54 3.06 2.72 3.92 3.81
Lys:Calorie ME b
g/Mcal 3.90 3.47 3.03 2.62 2.29 2.08 2.99 2.91
Methionine + cysteine:Lys Ratio 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
Threonine:Lys Ratio 65 65 65 65 65 66 68 68
Tryptophan:Lys c
Ratio 19 18 18 18 18 18 20 20
Valine:Lys Ratio 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68
Isoleucine:Lys Ratio 55 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
Leucine:Lysd Ratio 100 101 101 101 101 102 100 100
Histidine:Lys Ratio 32 34 34 34 34 34 33 33
Phenylalanine + tyrosine:Lys Ratio 92 94 94 94 95 96 94 95
L-Lys-HCl, max e
% ---f 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.28 0.25 0.45 0.45
Max. SID Lys:CP g
Ratio 6.4 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Min. crude protein h
% --- --- --- --- --- 13 --- ---
Minerals
STTD P:Calorie NEi,j g/Mcal 1.80 1.62 1.43 1.25 1.10 0.99 1.20 1.16
STTD P:Calorie ME i,j
g/Mcal 1.32 1.20 1.07 0.95 0.84 0.77 0.93 0.90
Av. P:Calorie NE i,j,k
g/Mcal 1.54 1.39 1.23 1.07 0.94 0.85 0.99 0.96
Av. P:Calorie ME i,j,k
g/Mcal 1.14 1.03 0.92 0.82 0.72 0.66 0.77 0.74
1.25- 1.25- 1.25- 1.25- 1.25- 1.25- 1.25- 1.25-
Analyzed Ca:Analyzed P, rangel Ratio
1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Sodiumm % 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Chloride % 0.32 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Added trace mineralsn
Zinc ppm 130 111 98 78 65 65 65 65
Iron ppm 130 111 98 78 65 65 65 65
Manganese ppm 50 43 38 30 25 25 25 25
Coppero ppm 18 15 14 11 9 9 9 9
Iodine ppm 0.65 0.55 0.49 0.39 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
Selenium ppm 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

R-1 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Body Weight, lbs
230-Market with
ITEM UNIT 130- 180- 230-
25-50 50-90 90-130 Ractopaminer
180 230 Market
< 21 D > 21 D
per lb
Added vitaminsn,p
diet
Vitamin A IU/lb 2268 1928 1701 1361 1134 1134 1134 1134
Vitamin D IU/lb 726 617 545 436 363 363 363 363
Vitamin E IU/lb 23 20 17 14 12 12 12 12
Vitamin K mg/lb 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Niacin mg/lb 23 20 17 14 12 12 12 12
Riboflavin mg/lb 3.6 3 3 2 2 2 2 2
Pantothenic acid mg/lb 12.8 11 10 8 6 6 6 6
Vitamin B12 mcg/lb 17.2 15 13 10 9 9 9 9
Cholineq mg/lb --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
a
These specifications are based on nutrient intake per day and should be used as a guideline. They require adjustment for feed intake, local
b
For more detailed information on the equations to determine the Lys recommendations, refer to Section C. Please click here to access the PIC®
SID Lys Biological and Economical tools to determine the SID Lys to energy ratio to maximize performance and/or economics based on your
specific situation. These tools also provide SID Lys to energy ratios to maximize performance for barrows, gilts, and intact boars. The SID Lys to
energy ratios meet the biological requirements for PIC® 327, 337, and 359 sired pigs. PIC® suggests to utilize 99% of the tool estimates for PIC®
380, 408, and 410 sired pigs; and 97% for PIC® 800 sired pigs to achieve the biological requirements of these sirelines.
Please click here to access the Tryptophan:Lys Economic Model for Nursery and Finishing Pigs tool to determine the SID tryptophan to Lys ratio to
c
maximize performance and/or economics based on your specific situation.

d
Excess SID leucine to Lys ratio can negatively impact pig growth performance. Please see the table on page R-3 for adjustments in tryptophan,
valine, and isoleucine to Lys ratios according to leucine to Lys ratio (Adapted from Cemin et al., 2019).
e
L-Lys-HCl maximum inclusions are suggested based on corn and soybean meal-based diets and are to be used as a guideline. Inclusion rates
above the suggested maximum levels could be used as long as all other amino acid to Lys ratios meet PIC® recommendations.
f
High health 25-50 lb pigs can tolerate higher levels of soybean meal up to 35%.
g
Based on the results of Millet et al. (2018).
h
These recommendations are based on a series of studies conducted by Soto et al. (2019b). Assumes all amino acid ratios are adequate.
Phosphorus values are considering release due to phytase; however, release values need to be based on suppliers’ recommendation established
i
from peer-reviewed scientific research. STTD P = Standardized total tract digestible phosphorus, Av. P = available P.
For more detailed information on the equations to determine the phosphorus recommendations, refer to Section D. Please click here to access
j
the PIC® STTD and Av. P Biological and Economical tools to determine the phosphorus to energy ratio to maximize performance and/or economics
based on your specific situation.
k
The recommendations for available P are estimated as 86% of the STTD P recommendations in a corn-soybean meal-diet using STTD P coefficient
and P bioavailability from NRC (1998 and 2012).
l
The analyzed Ca:analyzed P ratio is determined based on Vier et al., (2019c) considering P concentrations at the recommended PIC® requirement.
m
If sodium levels are not known in major ingredients use at least 80% of sodium coming from sodium chloride.
n
The values represent micronutrients supplementation without giving credit for ingredient content.
o
High levels of copper to improve growth performance is 250 ppm for 25-50 lb pigs. Inorganic forms assumed. Different countries have different
regulations regarding the use of copper as a growth promoter, follow your country’s regulation.
p
Thermal processing by pelleting decreases vitamin stability by 10-12% and expanding by 15-20%. Consult vitamin manufacturers to verify their
specific vitamin stability underthermal processing conditions so additional fortification can be made as required.
q
For 25-50 lb pigs, a total concentration of 600 mg of choline per lb including choline provided by ingredients.
r
When usage is allowed by the local governing body within your country of operation.

R-2
Example of adjustments on tryptophan, valine, and isoleucine ratios according to leucine levels (adapted from Cemin
et al., 2019)
Leucine:Lys Ratio
Item
125.0 135.0 145.0 155.0 165.0 175.0 185.0 195.0 205.0
Tryptophan 18.0 18.2 18.5 18.7 19.0 19.2 19.4 19.7 19.9
Valine 68.0 68.4 69.7 71.1 72.4 73.8 75.1 76.5 77.8
Isoleucine 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.0 56.2 57.2 58.2 59.3 60.3

R-3 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Section S
Feeding PIC® Pigs within Special Topics
Adjustments can be made to PIC® nutrition and feeding recommendations to
accommodate special topics of pig production, which include specific regional
legislation, different production environments, or different packing plant
requirements.
For information regarding feeding PIC® pigs under specific programs reach out to your PIC® account team or click here:
here:
• Carcass yield and pork fat quality

• Contingent considerations for urgent situations
• Feed additives
- Key points to consider when using Ractopamine in swine diets
• Feeding pigs in hot environments
• Feed manufacturing guidelines for PIC® pigs
• Ham production
• Immunocastrated pigs
• Intact finishing boar’s requirements
• Liquid feeding
• Nutritional factors associated with abnormal behaviors
• Outdoor production
• Requirements of finishing boars
• Split sex feeding
• Upper limits for feed ingredients use
• Water

S-1
S-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Section T
Bibliography
Almeida, L. M., M. A. D. Gonçalves, U. A. D. Orlando, and A. Maiorka. 2017. 162 Effects of feeding levels during wean-to-estrus interval
and first week of gestation on reproductive performance of sows. J. Anim. Sci. 95:76–77. doi:10.2527/asasmw.2017.12.162.
Almeida, L. M., M. Gonçalves, U. A. D. Orlando, and A. Maiorka. 2018. 174 Effects of Feeding Level and Diet Type during Wean-to-Estrus
Interval on Reproductive Performance of Sows. J. Anim. Sci. 96:92–92. doi:10.1093/jas/sky073.171.
Almond, G., W. L. Flowers, L. Batista, and S. D’Allaire. 2006. Disease of the reproductive system. In: B. E. Straw, J. J. Zimmerman, S.
D’Allaire, and D. J. Taylor, editors. Diseases of swine. 9th ed. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA. p. 113–147.
Althouse, B., M. E. Wilson, T. Gall, and R. L. Moser. 2000. Effects of supplemental dietary zinc on boar sperm production and testis size.
In: 14th International Congress on Animal Reproduction. Stockholm, Sweden. p. 264.
Ampaire, A., and C. L. Levesque. 2016. D Effect of altered lysine:energy ratio during gestation on wean pig growth performance. J. Anim.
Sci. 94:125. doi:10.2527/msasas2016-264.
ARC (Agricultural Research Council). 1981. The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs: Technical Review. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux,
Slough, UK.
Athorn, R. Z., P. Stott, E. G. Bouwman, T. Y. Chen, D. J. Kennaway, and P. Langendijk. 2013. Effect of feeding level on luteal function and
progesterone concentration in the vena cava during early pregnancy in gilts. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 25:531–538. doi:10.1071/RD11295.
Baidoo, S. K., F. X. Aherne, R. N. Kirkwood, and G. R. Foxcroft. 1992. Effect of feed intake during lactation and after weaning on sow
reproductive performance. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 72:911–917. doi:10.4141/cjas92-103.
Ball, M. E. E., E. Magowan, K. J. McCracken, V. E. Beattie, R. Bradford, F. J. Gordon, M. J. Robinson, S. Smyth, and W. Henry. 2013. The
Effect of Level of Crude Protein and Available Lysine on Finishing Pig Performance, Nitrogen Balance and Nutrient Digestibility.
Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Sci. 26:564–572. doi:10.5713/ajas.2012.12177.
Baumgartner, M. 1998. Boars react positively to L-carnitine supplements. Int. Pig Top. 13:22.
Bazer, F. W., G. W. Song, J. Y. Kim, K. A. Dunlap, M. C. Satterfield, G. A. Johnson, R. C. Burghardt, and G. Wu. 2012. Uterine biology in
sheep and pigs. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 3:1–21. doi:10.1186/2049-1891-3-23.
Berger, T., K. L. Esbenshade, M. A. Diekman, T. Hoagland, and J. Tuite. 1981. Influence of Prepubertal Consumption of Zearalenone on
Sexual Development of Boars. J. Anim. Sci. 53:1559–1564. doi:10.2527/jas1982.5361559x.
Bergstrom, J. R., C. N. Groesbeck, J. M. Benz, M. D. Tokach, J. L. Nelssen, J. M. DeRouchey, R. D. Goodband, and S. S. Dritz. 2007. An
evaluation of dextrose, lactose, and whey sources in phase 2 starter diets for weanling pigs. Kansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Reports.
60–65. doi:10.4148/2378-5977.6962.
Berndt, T., and R. Kumar. 2009. Novel Mechanisms in the Regulation of Phosphorus Homeostasis. Physiology. 24:17–25. doi:10.1152/
physiol.00034.2008.
Boyd, R. D., G. C. Castro, R. A. Cabrera, and B. Franklin. 2002. Nutrition and management of the sow to maximize lifetime productivity.
Advances in Pork Production. 13:47–59.
Bruder, E., G. Gourley, and M. Goncalves. 2018. 313 - Effects of Standardized Ileal Digestible Lysine Intake during Lactation on Litter and
Reproductive Performance of Gilts. J. Anim. Sci. 96:168–168. doi:10.1093/jas/sky073.310.
Buis, R. Q., D. Wey, and C. F. M. De Lange. 2016. 266 - Development of precision gestation feeding program using electronic sow feeders
and effects on gilt performance. J. Anim. Sci. 94:125-126. doi:10.2527/msasas2016-266.
Cabezón, F. A., K. R. Stewart, A. P. Schinckel, W. Barnes, R. D. Boyd, P. Wilcock, and J. Woodliff. 2016. Effect of natural betaine on estimates of
semen quality in mature AI boars during summer heat stress. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 170:25–37. doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2016.03.009.
Cemin, H. S., C. M. Vier, M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, K. J. Touchette, J. C. Woodworth, J. M. DeRouchey, and R. D. Goodband. 2018. Effects of
standardized ileal digestible histidine to lysine ratio on growth performance of 7- to 11-kg nursery pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 96:4713–4722.
doi:10.1093/jas/sky319.
Cemin, H. S., M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, J. C. Woodworth, J. M. DeRouchey, and R. D. Goodband. 2019. Meta-regression analysis to
predict the influence of branched-chain and large neutral amino acids on growth performance of pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 97:2505–2514.
doi:10.1093/jas/skz118.

T-1
Chen, J. Q., Y. S. Li, Z. J. Li, H. X. Lu, P. Q. Zhu, and C. M. Li. 2018. Dietary l -arginine supplementation improves semen quality and libido
of boars under high ambient temperature. Animal. 12:1611–1620. doi:10.1017/S1751731117003147.
Chiba, L. I., A. J. Lewis, and E. R. Peo. 1991. Amino acid and energy interrelationships in pigs weighing 20 to 50 kilograms: I. Rate and
efficiency of weight gain. J. Anim. Sci. 69:694–707. doi:10.2527/1991.692694x.
Cho, J. H., B. J. Min, Y. J. Chen, J. S. Yoo, Q. Wang, J. D. Kim, and I. H. Kim. 2007. Evaluation of FSP (Fermented Soy Protein) to Replace
Soybean Meal in Weaned Pigs: Growth Performance, Blood Urea Nitrogen and Total Protein Concentrations in Serum and Nutrient
Digestibility. Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Sci. 20:1874–1879. doi:10.5713/ajas.2007.1874.
Clark, A. B., M. D. Tokach, J. M. DeRouchey, S. S. Dritz, J. C. Woodworth, R. D. Goodband, and K. J. Touchette. 2017a. Effects of Amino
Acid Ratios and Lysine Level on Nursery Pig Growth Performance. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 3:
Iss. 7. https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.7466
Clark, A. B., M. D. Tokach, J. M. DeRouchey, S. S. Dritz, R. D. Goodband, J. C. Woodworth, K. J. Touchette, and N. M. Bello. 2017b.
Modeling the effects of standardized ileal digestible isoleucine to lysine ratio on growth performance of nursery pigs. Transl. Anim.
Sci. 1:437–447. doi:10.2527/tas2017.0048.
Close, W. H., and F. G. Roberts. 1993. Nutrition of the working boar. In: D. J. . Cole, A. Haresign, and P. C. Garnsworthy, editors. Recent
Developments in Pig Nutrition. 2nd ed. University Press, Nottingham , UK. p. 347–368.
Cools, A., D. Maes, R. Decaluwé, J. Buyse, T. A. T. G. van Kempen, A. Liesegang, and G. P. J. Janssens. 2014. Ad libitum feeding during
the peripartal period affects body condition, reproduction results and metabolism of sows. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 145:130–140.
doi:10.1016/j.anireprosci.2014.01.008.
CVB. 2008. Central Bureau for Livestock Feeding. Lelystad, Netherlands.
Decaluwé, R., D. Maes, A. Cools, B. Wuyts, S. De Smet, B. Marescau, P. P. De Deyn, and G. P. J. Janssens. 2014. Effect of peripartal feeding
strategy on colostrum yield and composition in sows. J. Anim. Sci. 92:3557–3567. doi:10.2527/jas.2014-7612.
Dritz, S. S., R. D. Goodband, J. M. DeRouchey, M. D. Tokach, and J. C. Woodworth. 2019. Nutrient Deficiencies and Excesses. In: J.J.
Zimmerman, L. A. Karriker, A. Ramirez, K. J. Schwartz, G. W. Stevenson, J. Zhang. editors. Diseases of Swine. 11th ed. Wiley Blackwell.
p. 1041–1054.
Engle, M. J. 1994. The role of soybean meal hypersensitivity in postweaning lag and diarrhea in piglets. Swine Heal. Prod. 2:7–10.
Estienne, M. J., A. F. Harper, and R. J. Crawford. 2008. Dietary supplementation with a source of omega-3 fatty acids increases sperm
number and the duration of ejaculation in boars. Theriogenology. 70:70–76. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.02.007.
Euken, R. M. 2012. Swine Feed Efficiency: Effect of dietary energy on feed efficiency. Available from: http://www.swinefeedefficiency.
com/
Faccin, J. E. G., M. D. Tokach, M. W. Allerson, J. C. Woodworth, J. M. DeRouchey, S. S. Dritz, F. P. Bortolozzo, and R. D. Goodband. 2020.
Relationship between weaning age and antibiotic usage on pig growth performance and mortality. J. Anim. Sci. doi:10.1093/jas/
skaa363.
Feyera, T., T. F. Pedersen, U. Krogh, L. Foldager, and P. K. Theil. 2018. Impact of sow energy status during farrowing on farrowing kinetics,
frequency of stillborn piglets, and farrowing assistance. J. Anim. Sci. 96:2320–2331. doi:10.1093/jas/sky141.
Figueroa, J. L., A. J. Lewis, P. S. Miller, R. L. Fischer, and R. M. Diedrichsen. 2003. Growth, carcass traits, and plasma amino acid
concentrations of gilts fed low-protein diets supplemented with amino acids including histidine, isoleucine, and valine. J. Anim. Sci.
81:1529–1537. doi:10.2527/2003.8161529x.
Flohr, J. R., J. M. Derouchey, J. C. Woodworth, M. D. Tokach, R. D. Goodband, and S. S. Dritz. 2016. Original research peer reviewed a
survey of current feeding regimens for vitamins and trace minerals in the US swine industry. J. Swine Heal. Prod. 24:290–303.
Fraser, D. 1987. Mineral-deficient diets and the pig’s attraction to blood: implications for tail-biting. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 67:909–918.
doi:10.4141/cjas87-096.
Gabert, V. M., H. Jørgensen, and C. M. Nyachoti. 2001. Bioavailability of AA in feedstuffs for swine. In: A. J. Lewis and L. L. Southern,
editors. Swine Nutrition,. 2nd ed. CRC Press, New York, Ny. p. 151–186.
Gianluppi, R. D. F., M. S. Lucca, A. P. G. Mellagi, M. L. Bernardi, U. A. D. Orlando, R. R. Ulguim, and F. P. Bortolozzo. 2020. Effects of
different amounts and type of diet during weaning-to-estrus interval on reproductive performance of primiparous and multiparous
sows. animal. 14:1906–1915. doi:10.1017/S175173112000049X.
Gonçalves, M. A. D., S. Nitikanchana, M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, N. M. Bello, R. D. Goodband, K. J. Touchette, J. L. Usry, J. M. DeRouchey,
and J. C. Woodworth. 2015. Effects of standardized ileal digestible tryptophan: lysine ratio on growth performance of nursery pigs.
J. Anim. Sci. 93:3909–3918. doi:10.2527/jas.2015-9083.

T-2 For the most updated PIC Nutrition and Feeding Guidelines visit https://www.pic.com/resources
Gonçalves, M. A. D., K. M. Gourley, S. S. Dritz, M. D. Tokach, N. M. Bello, J. M. DeRouchey, J. C. Woodworth, and R. D. Goodband.
2016b. Effects of amino acids and energy intake during late gestation of high-performing gilts and sows on litter and reproductive
performance under commercial conditions. J. Anim. Sci. 94:1993–2003. doi:10.2527/jas.2015-0087.
Gonçalves, M. A. D., M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, N. M. Bello, K. J. Touchette, R. D. Goodband, J. M. Derouchey, and J. C. Woodworth. 2018.
Standardized ileal digestible valine:Lysine dose response effects in 25- to 45-kg pigs under commercial conditions. J. Anim. Sci.
96:591–599. doi:10.1093/jas/skx059.
González-Vega, J. C., Y. Liu, J. C. McCann, C. L. Walk, J. J. Loor, and H. H. Stein. 2016a. Requirement for digestible calcium by eleven- to
twenty-five–kilogram pigs as determined by growth performance, bone ash concentration, calcium and phosphorus balances, and
expression of genes involved in transport of calcium in intestinal and kidney cell. J. Anim. Sci. 94:3321–3334. doi:10.2527/jas.2016-
0444.
González-Vega, J. C., C. L. Walk, M. R. Murphy, and H. H. Stein. 2016b. Requirement for digestible calcium by 25 to 50 kg pigs at different
dietary concentrations of phosphorus as indicated by growth performance, bone ash concentration, and calcium and phosphorus
balances. J. Anim. Sci. 94:5272–5285. doi:10.2527/jas.2016-0751.
Goodband, B., M. Tokach, S. Dritz, J. DeRouchey, and J. Woodworth. 2014. Practical starter pig amino acid requirements in relation to
immunity, gut health and growth performance. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 5:12. doi:10.1186/2049-1891-5-12.
Gourley, K. M., G. E. Nichols, J. A. Sonderman, Z. T. Spencer, J. C. Woodworth, M. D. Tokach, J. M. DeRouchey, S. S. Dritz, R. D. Goodband,
S. J. Kitt, and E. W. Stephenson. 2017. Determining the impact of increasing standardized ileal digestible lysine for primiparous and
multiparous sows during lactation. Transl. Anim. Sci. 1:426–436. doi:10.2527/tas2017.0043.
Gourley, K. M., A. J. Swanson, J. M. DeRouchey, M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, R. D. Goodband, and J. C. Woodworth. 2020a. Effects of
increased lysine and energy feeding duration prior to parturition on sow and litter performance, piglet survival, and colostrum
quality. J. Anim. Sci. 98. doi:10.1093/jas/skaa105.
Gourley, K. M., A. J. Swanson, R. Q. Royall, J. M. DeRouchey, M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, R. D. Goodband, C. W. Hastad, and J. C. Woodworth.
2020b. Effects of timing and size of meals prior to farrowing on sow and litter performance. Transl. Anim. Sci. 4:724–736. doi:10.1093/
tas/txaa066.
Gourley, K. M., J. C. Woodworth, J. M. DeRouchey, M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, and R. D. Goodband. 2020c. Effects of soybean meal
concentration in lactating sow diets on sow and litter performance and blood criteria. Transl. Anim. Sci. 4:594–601. doi:10.1093/
tas/txaa037.
Graham, A., K. J. Touchette, S. Jungst, M. Tegtmeyer, J. Connor, and L. Greiner. 2015. Impact of feeding level postweaning on wean to
estrus interval, conception and farrowing rates, and subsequent farrowing performance. J. Anim. Sci. 93:65.
Graham, A., L. Greiner, M. A. D. Goncalves, U. A. D. Orlando, and K. J. Touchette. 2018. Lysine Requirement of Lactating Sows - Revisited.
J. Anim. Sci. 96:167–168. doi:10.1093/jas/sky073.309.
Greiner, L., A. Graham, K. J. Touchette, and C. R. Neill. 2016. The evaluation of increasing lysine or feed amounts in late gestation on
piglet birth weights. J. Anim. Sci. 94:123-124. doi:10.2527/msasas2016-261.
Greiner, L., A. Graham, K. J. Touchette, M. A. D. Goncalves, U. A. D. Orlando, and J. Connor. 2017. Threonine:Lysine ratio requirement in
lactating sows. J. Anim. Sci. 95:115. doi:10.2527/asasmw.2017.12.240.
Guo, J. Y., C. E. Phillips, M. T. Coffey, and S. W. Kim. 2015. Efficacy of a supplemental candy coproduct as an alternative carbohydrate
source to lactose on growth performance of newly weaned pigs in a commercial farm condition. J. Anim. Sci. 93:5304–5312.
doi:10.2527/jas.2015-9328.
Harper, H., G. Silva, B. Peterson, A. Hanson, J. Soto, C. Vier, N. Lu, and U. Orlando. 2021. Effects of Different Feeding Levels Prior to
Farrowing on Sow and Litter Performance. In: ASAS Midwest Animal Science Meetings
Heo, J. M., J. C. Kim, C. F. Hansen, B. P. Mullan, D. J. Hampson, and J. R. Pluske. 2009. Feeding a diet with decreased protein content reduces
indices of protein fermentation and the incidence of postweaning diarrhea in weaned pigs challenged with an enterotoxigenic
strain of Escherichia coli. J. Anim. Sci. 87:2833–2843. doi:10.2527/jas.2008-1274.
Huerta, I., C. M. Vier, U. A. D. Orlando, N. Lu, R. Navales, and W. R. Cast. 2021. Association between gilts and sows body condition and
reproductive performance. In: ASAS Midwest Animal Science Meetings.
Jacyno, E., A. Kołodziej, M. Kamyczek, M. Kawęcka, K. Dziadek, and A. Pietruszka. 2007. Effect of L-Carnitine Supplementation on Boar
Semen Quality. Acta Vet. Brno. 76:595–600. doi:10.2754/avb200776040595.
Jang, K. B., J. M. Purvis, and S. W. Kim. 2019. 143 Supplemental effects of whey permeate on growth performance and gut health of
nursery pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 97:81–82. doi:10.1093/jas/skz122.148.

T-3
Jayaraman, B., J. Htoo, and C. M. Nyachoti. 2015. Effects of dietary threonine:lysine ratioes and sanitary conditions on performance,
plasma urea nitrogen, plasma-free threonine and lysine of weaned pigs. Anim. Nutr. 1:283–288. doi:10.1016/j.aninu.2015.09.003.
Jerez, K., C. Ramirez-Camba, C. Vier, N. Lu, W. Cast, S. Dritz, R. Navales, U. Orlando. 2021. A web application to establish customized
feeding program and nutrient specifications for highly prolific sows. In: ASAS Midwest Animal Science Meetings.
Jindal, R., J. R. Cosgrove, F. X. Aherne, and G. R. Foxcroft. 1996. Effect of nutrition on embryonal mortality in gilts: association with
progesterone. J. Anim. Sci. 74:620–624. doi:10.2527/1996.743620x.
Jones, C. K., J. M. DeRouchey, J. L. Nelssen, M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, and R. D. Goodband. 2010. Effects of fermented soybean meal and
specialty animal protein sources on nursery pig performance. J. Anim. Sci. 88:1725–1732. doi:10.2527/jas.2009-2110.
Jones, C. K., M. D. Tokach, J. L. Usry, C. R. Neill, and J. F. Patience. 2014. Evaluating lysine requirements of nursery pigs fed low protein
diets with different sources of nonessential amino acids. J. Anim. Sci. 92:3460–3470. doi:10.2527/jas.2014-7018.
Jones, A. M., F. Wu, J. C. Woodworth, M. D. Tokach, R. D. Goodband, J. M. DeRouchey, and S. S. Dritz. 2018. Evaluating the effects of fish
meal source and level on growth performance of nursery pigs. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2:144–155. doi:10.1093/tas/txy010.
De Jong, J., C. R. Neill, M. A. D. Goncalves, U. A. D. Orlando, and M. Culbertson. 2018. 310 - Effects of Standardized Ileal Digestible (SID)
Threonine: Lysine Ratio on Nursery Pig Performance. J. Anim. Sci. 96:166–167. doi:10.1093/jas/sky073.307.
Kahindi, R., A. Regassa, J. Htoo, and M. Nyachoti. 2017. Optimal sulfur amino acid to lysine ratio for post weaning piglets reared under
clean or unclean sanitary conditions. Anim. Nutr. 3:380–385. doi:10.1016/j.aninu.2017.08.004.
Kemp, B., H. J. G. Grooten, L. A. Den Hartog, P. Luiting, and M. W. A. Verstegen. 1988. The effect of a high protein intake on sperm
production in boars at two semen collection frequencies. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 17:103–113. doi:10.1016/0378-4320(88)90050-4.
Kemp, B., L. A. Den Hartog, and H. J. G. Grooten. 1989. The effect of feeding level on semen quantity and quality of breeding boars.
Anim. Reprod. Sci. 20:245–254. doi:10.1016/0378-4320(89)90073-0.
Kemp, B., F. P. Vervoort, P. Bikker, J. Janmaat, M. W. A. Verstegen, and H. J. G. Grooten. 1990. Semen collection frequency and the
energy metabolism of A.I. boars. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 22:87–98. doi:10.1016/0378-4320(90)90068-Q.
Kendall, D. C., A. M. Gaines, G. L. Allee, and J. L. Usry. 2008. Commercial validation of the true ileal digestible lysine requirement for
eleven- to twenty-seven-kilogram pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 86:324–332. doi:10.2527/jas.2007-0086.
Kim, S. W., D. H. Baker, and R. A. Easter. 2001. Dynamic ideal protein and limiting amino acids for lactating sows: the impact of amino
acid mobilization. J. Anim. Sci. 79:2356–2366. doi:10.2527/2001.7992356x.
Kim, S. W., and R. A. Easter. 2001. Nutritional value of fish meals in the diet for young pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1829–1839.
doi:10.2527/2001.7971829x.
Kim, S. W., E. Van Heugten, F. Ji, C. H. Lee, and R. D. Mateo. 2010. Fermented soybean meal as a vegetable protein source for nursery
pigs: I. Effects on growth performance of nursery pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 88:214–224. doi:10.2527/jas.2009-1993.
Knauer, M. T., J. Purvis, N. Lu, U. A. D. Orlando, C. M. Vier, and W. R. Cast. 2020. Evaluation of the NRC (2012) model in estimating
standard maintenance metabolizable energy requirement of PIC® sows during mid-gestation. In: ASAS Midwest Animal Science
Meetings.
Kozink, D. M., M. J. Estienne, A. F. Harper, and J. W. Knight. 2004. Effects of dietary l-carnitine supplementation on semen characteristics
in boars. Theriogenology. 61:1247–1258. doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2003.07.022.
Kwon, W. B., and H. H. Stein. 2019. Update on amino acids in high fiber diets: Threonine and branch chained amino acids. In: Midwest
Swine Nutr. Conf. Indianapolis. p. 11–17.
Kwon, W. B., K. J. Touchette, A. Simongiovanni, K. Syriopoulos, A. Wessels, and H. H. Stein. 2019. Excess dietary leucine in diets for
growing pigs reduces growth performance, biological value of protein, protein retention, and serotonin synthesis. J. Anim. Sci.
97:4282–4292. doi:10.1093/jas/skz259.
De La Llata, M., S. S. Dritz, M. R. Langemeier, M. D. Tokach, R. D. Goodband, and J. L. Nelssen. 2001. Economics of increasing lysine:calorie
ratio and adding dietary fat for growing-finishing pigs reared in a commercial environment. J. Swine Heal. Prod. 9:215–223.
Langendijk, P., E. G. Bouwman, T. Y. Chen, R. E. Koopmanschap, and N. M. Soede. 2017. Temporary undernutrition during early gestation,
corpora lutea morphometrics, ovarian progesterone secretion and embryo survival in gilts. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 29:1349–1355.
doi:10.1071/RD15520.
Laskoski, F., J. E. Faccin, C. M. Vier, M. A. Gonçalves, U. A. Orlando, R. Kummer, A. P. Mellagi, M. L. Bernardi, I. Wentz, and F. P. Bortolozzo.
2019. Effects of pigs per feeder hole and group size on feed intake onset, growth performance, and ear and tail lesions in nursery
pigs with consistent space allowance. J. Swine Heal. Prod. 27:12–18.

Leeson, S., and J. D. Summers. 2001. Minerals. In: Nutrition of the Chicken. 4th ed. University Books, Guelph, ON. p. 331–428.
Levis, D. G. 1997. Managing post pubertal boars for optimum fertility. The Compendium’s Food Animal Medicine and Management.
Liao, P., X. Shu, M. Tang, B. Tan, and Y. Yin. 2018. Effect of dietary copper source (inorganic vs. chelated) on immune response, mineral
status, and fecal mineral excretion in nursery piglets. Food Agric. Immunol. 29:548–563. doi:10.1080/09540105.2017.1416068.
Lindemann, M. D., and N. Lu. 2019. Use of chromium as an animal feed supplement. In: J. Vincent, editor. The nutritional biochemistry
of chromium. 1st ed. Elsevier. p. 79–125.
Liu, Y., Y. L. Ma, J. M. Zhao, M. Vazquez-Añón, and H. H. Stein. 2014. Digestibility and retention of zinc, copper, manganese, iron, calcium,
and phosphorus in pigs fed diets containing inorganic or organic minerals. J. Anim. Sci. 92:3407–3415. doi:10.2527/jas.2013-7080.
Louis, G. F., A. J. Lewis, W. C. Weldon, P. M. Ermer, P. S. Miller, R. J. Kittok, and W. W. Stroup. 1994a. The effect of energy and protein intakes
on boar libido, semen characteristics, and plasma hormone concentrations. J. Anim. Sci. 72:2051–2060. doi:10.2527/1994.7282051x.
Louis, G. F., A. J. Lewis, W. C. Weldon, P. S. Miller, R. J. Kittok, and W. W. Stroup. 1994b. The effect of protein intake on boar libido, semen
characteristics, and plasma hormone concentrations. J. Anim. Sci. 72:2038–2050. doi:10.2527/1994.7282038x.
Lu, N., and M. D. Lindemann. 2017. Effects of dietary copper levels on growth performance and response to lipopolysaccharide
challenge in nursery pigs from sows fed either high or low copper diets. J. Anim. Sci. 95:55. doi:10.2527/asasmw.2017.118.
Lu, N., H. J. Monegue, and M. D. Lindemann. 2018. Long-Term Effects of Dietary Source and Level of Copper on Reproductive Performance,
Nutrient Digestibility, Milk Composition, and Tissue Trace Mineral Concentrations of Sows. J. Anim. Sci. 96:132. doi:10.1093/jas/
sky073.244.
Lu, N., C. Vier, W. Cast, U. Orlando, M. Goncalves, and M. Young. 2020. Effects of dietary net energy and neutral detergent fiber levels
on growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing finishing pigs. In: ASAS Midwest Animal Science Meetings.
Lu, N., R. Wang, G. Popa, C. Vier, and U. Orlando. 2021. Effects of different feeding regimes during wean-to-estrus interval on sow
reproductive performance. In: ASAS Midwest Animal Science Meetings.
Lunedo, R., D. Perondi, C. M. Vier, U. A. D. Orlando, G. F. R. Lima, A. D. Junior, and R. Kummer. 2020. Determining the effects of diet
complexity and body weight categories on growth performance of nursery pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 98:92. doi:10.1093/jas/skaa054.160.
Madec, F., N. Bridoux, S. Bounaix, and A. Jestin. 1998. Measurement of digestive disorders in the piglet at weaning and related risk
factors. Prev. Vet. Med. 35:53–72. doi:10.1016/S0167-5877(97)00057-3.
Main, R. G., S. S. Dritz, M. D. Tokach, R. D. Goodband, and J. L. Nelssen. 2004. Increasing weaning age improves pig performance in a
multisite production system. J. Anim. Sci. 82:1499–1507. doi:10.2527/2004.8251499x.
Main, R. G., S. S. Dritz, M. D. Tokach, R. D. Goodband, J. L. Nelssen, and J. M. DeRouchey. 2008. Effects of Feeding Growing Pigs Less
or More Than Their Estimated Lysine Requirement in Early and Late Finishing on Overall Performance. Prof. Anim. Sci. 24:76–87.
doi:10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30813-5.
Mallmann, A. L., F. B. Betiolo, E. Camilloti, A. P. G. Mellagi, R. R. Ulguim, I. Wentz, M. L. Bernardi, M. A. D. Gonçalves, R. Kummer, and
F. P. Bortolozzo. 2018. Two different feeding levels during late gestation in gilts and sows under commercial conditions: Impact on
piglet birth weight and female reproductive performance. J. Anim. Sci. 96:4209–4219. doi:10.1093/jas/sky297.
Mallmann, A. L., E. Camilotti, D. P. Fagundes, C. E. Vier, A. P. G. Mellagi, R. R. Ulguim, M. L. Bernardi, U. A. D. Orlando, M. A. D.
Gonçalves, R. Kummer, and F. P. Bortolozzo. 2019. Impact of feed intake during late gestation on piglet birth weight and reproductive
performance: A dose-response study performed in gilts. J. Anim. Sci. 97:1262–1272. doi:10.1093/jas/skz017.
Mallmann, A. L., G. S. Oliveira, R. R. Ulguim, A. P. G. Mellagi, M. L. Bernardi, U. A. D. Orlando, M. A. D. Gonçalves, R. J. Cogo, and F. P.
Bortolozzo. 2020. Impact of feed intake in early gestation on maternal growth and litter size according to body reserves at weaning
of young parity sows. J. Anim. Sci. 98. doi:10.1093/jas/skaa075.
Mansilla, W. D., J. K. Htoo, and C. F. M. de Lange. 2017. Replacing dietary nonessential amino acids with ammonia nitrogen does not
alter amino acid profile of deposited protein in the carcass of growing pigs fed a diet deficient in nonessential amino acid nitrogen.
J. Anim. Sci. 95:4481–4489. doi:10.2527/jas2017.1631.
Mathai, J. K., J. K. Htoo, J. E. Thomson, K. J. Touchette, and H. H. Stein. 2016. Effects of dietary fiber on the ideal standardized ileal
digestible threonine:lysine ratio for twenty-five to fifty kilogram growing gilts. J. Anim. Sci. 94:4217–4230. doi:10.2527/jas.2016-
0680.
Menegat, M. B., S. S. Dritz, C. M. Vier, M. D. Tokach, J. M. DeRouchey, J. C. Woodworth, and R. D. Goodband. 2018. Update on feeding
strategies for the highly prolific sow. In: 49th AASV Annual Meeting.
Menegat, Mariana B, S. S. Dritz, M. D. Tokach, J. C. Woodworth, J. M. DeRouchey, and R. D. Goodband. 2020a. Phase-feeding strategies
based on lysine specifications for grow-finish pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 98. doi:10.1093/jas/skz366.

T-5
Menegat, Mariana B., S. S. Dritz, M. D. Tokach, J. C. Woodworth, J. M. Derouchey, and R. D. Goodband. 2020b. A review of compensatory
growth following lysine restriction in grow-finish pigs. Transl. Anim. Sci. 4:531–547. doi:10.1093/tas/txaa014.
Merriman, L. A., C. L. Walk, M. R. Murphy, C. M. Parsons, and H. H. Stein. 2017. Inclusion of excess dietary calcium in diets for 100- to
130-kg growing pigs reduces feed intake and daily gain if dietary phosphorus is at or below the requirement. J. Anim. Sci. 95:5439–
5446. doi:10.2527/jas2017.1995.
Miller, K., and T. A. Kellner. 2020. Impact of pre-farrow feeding amount and timing on stillborn rate of sows. J. Anim. Sci. 98:100.
doi:10,1093/jas/skaa054.173.
Millet, S., M. Aluwé, J. De Boever, B. De Witte, L. Douidah, A. Van den Broeke, F. Leen, C. De Cuyper, B. Ampe, and S. De Campeneere.
2018. The effect of crude protein reduction on performance and nitrogen metabolism in piglets (four to nine weeks of age) fed two
dietary lysine levels. J. Anim. Sci. 96:3824–3836. doi:10.1093/jas/sky254.
Moeser, A. J., K. A. Ryan, P. K. Nighot, and A. T. Blikslager. 2007. Gastrointestinal dysfunction induced by early weaning is attenuated
by delayed weaning and mast cell blockade in pigs. Am. J. Physiol. Liver Physiol. 293:G413–G421. doi:10.1152/ajpgi.00304.2006.
Moore, K. L., B. P. Mullan, and J. C. Kim. 2013. Blend-feeding or feeding a single diet to pigs has no impact on growth performance or
carcass quality. Anim. Prod. Sci. 53:52–56. doi:10.1071/AN12053.
Nemechek, J. E., F. Wu, M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, R. D. Goodband, J. M. DeRouchey, and J. C. Woodworth. 2018. Effect of standardized
ileal digestible lysine on growth and subsequent performance of weanling pigs. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2:156–161. doi:10.1093/tas/
txy011.
Nitikanchana, S., S. S. Dritz, M. D. Tokach, J. M. DeRouchey, R. D. Goodband, and B. J. White. 2015. Regression analysis to predict growth
performance from dietary net energy in growing-finishing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 93:2826–2839. doi:10.2527/jas.2015-9005.
Noblet, J. and J. Van Milgen. 2004. Energy value of pig feeds: Effect of pig body weight and energy evaluation system. J. Anim. Sci.
82:229–238. doi:10.2527/2004.8213_supplE229x.
NRC. 1998. Nutrient requirements of swine. 10th ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
NRC. 2012. Nutrient requirements of swine. 11th ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
Orlando, U. A. D., R. Hinson, M. Goncalves, A. D. Woodward, and N. R. Augspurger. 2018. Determination of SID Lys:ME Requirements
in 129 to 149 Kg Pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 96:165–166. doi:10.1093/jas/sky073.305.
Orlando, U. A. D., C. M. Vier, W. R. Cast, N. Lu, R. Navales, and S. S. Dritz. 2021. Meta-analysis to determine the standardized ileal
digestible lysine requirements of growing-finishing pigs from 11- to 150-kg. In: ASAS Midwest Animal Science Meetings.
Peters, J. C., and D. C. Mahan. 2008. Effects of dietary organic and inorganic trace mineral levels on sow reproductive performances and
daily mineral intakes over six parities. J. Anim. Sci. 86:2247–2260. doi:10.2527/jas.2007-0431.
Richards, J. D., J. Zhao, R. J. Harrell, C. A. Atwell, and J. J. Dibner. 2010. Trace Mineral Nutrition in Poultry and Swine. Asian-Australasian
J. Anim. Sci. 23:1527–1534. doi:10.5713/ajas.2010.r.07.
Rijnen, M. M. J. A., M. W. A. Verstegen, M. J. W. Heetkamp, and J. W. Schrama. 2003. Effects of two different dietary fermentable
carbohydrates on activity and heat production in group-housed growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 81:1210–1219. doi:10.2527/2003.8151210x.
Rochell, S. J., L. S. Alexander, G. C. Rocha, W. G. Van Alstine, R. D. Boyd, J. E. Pettigrew, and R. N. Dilger. 2015. Effects of dietary soybean
meal concentration on growth and immune response of pigs infected with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. J.
Anim. Sci. 93:2987–2997. doi:10.2527/jas.2014-8462.
Rojo, G. A. 2011. Evaluation of the effects of branched chain amino acids and corn-distillers dried grains by-products on the growth
performance, carcass and meat quality characteristics of pigs. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Ruhr, L. P., G. D. Osweiler, and C. W. Foley. 1983. Effect of the estrogenic mycotoxin zearalenone on reproductive potential in the boar.
Am. J. Vet. Res. 44:483–485.
Ruth, M. R., and C. J. Field. 2013. The immune modifying effects of amino acids on gut-associated lymphoid tissue. J. Anim. Sci.
Biotechnol. 4:1–10. doi:10.1186/2049-1891-4-27.
Sauber, T. E., T. S. Stahly, N. H. Williams, and R. C. Ewan. 1998. Effect of lean growth genotype and dietary amino acid regimen on the
lactational performance of sows. J. Anim. Sci. 76:1098–1111. doi:10.2527/1998.7641098x.
Schinckel, A. P., M. E. Einstein, S. Jungst, J. O. Matthews, C. Booher, T. Dreadin, C. Fralick, E. Wilson, and R. D. Boyd. 2012. Daily feed
intake, energy intake, growth rate and measures of dietary energy efficiency of pigs from four sire lines fed diets with high or low
metabolizable and net energy concentrations. Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Sci. 25:410–420. doi:10.5713/ajas.2011.11212.
Shawk, D. J., R. D. Goodband, M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, J. M. DeRouchey, J. C. Woodworth, A. B. Lerner, and H. E. Williams. 2018. Effects
of added dietary salt on pig growth performance. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2:396–406. doi:10.1093/tas/txy085.

Shawk, D. J., M. D. Tokach, R. D. Goodband, S. S. Dritz, J. C. Woodworth, J. M. Derouchey, A. B. Lerner, F. Wu, C. M. Vier, M. M. Moniz,
and K. N. Nemechek. 2019. Effects of sodium and chloride source and concentration on nursery pig growth performance. J. Anim.
Sci. 97:745–755. doi:10.1093/jas/sky429.
She, Y., Q. Huang, D. Li, and X. Piao. 2017. Effects of proteinate complex zinc on growth performance, hepatic and splenic trace elements
concentrations, antioxidative function and immune functions in weaned piglets. Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Sci. 30:1160–1167.
doi:10.5713/ajas.16.0867.
Shelton, N. W., C. R. Neill, J. M. DeRouchey, M. D. Tokach, R. D. Goodband, J. L. Nelssen, and S. S. Dritz. 2009. Effects of increasing
feeding level during late gestation on sow and litter performance. Kansas Agri. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. doi:10.4148/2378-5977.6780.
Silva, G., R. Thompson, B. Knopf, L. Greiner, J. Soto, C. M. Vier, N. Lu, and U. A. D. Orlando. 2020. Effects of metabolizable energy
and standardized ileal digestible lysine levels on lactating sow and litter performance. J. Anim. Sci. 98:95-96. doi:10.1093/jas/
skaa054.166.
Skinner, L. D., C. L. Levesque, D. Wey, M. Rudar, J. Zhu, S. Hooda, and C. F. M. de Lange. 2014. Impact of nursery feeding program on
subsequent growth performance, carcass quality, meat quality, and physical and chemical body composition of growing-finishing
pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 92:1044–1054. doi:10.2527/jas.2013-6743.
Soto, J., L. Greiner, J. Connor, and G. Allee. 2011. Effects increasing feeding levels in sows during late gestation on piglet birth weights.
J. Anim. Sci. 89:86.
Soto, J. A., M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, M. A. D. Gonçalves, J. C. Woodworth, J. M. DeRouchey, R. D. Goodband, M. B. Menegat, and F.
Wu. 2019a. Regression analysis to predict the impact of dietary neutral detergent fiber on carcass yield in swine. Transl. Anim. Sci.
3:1270–1274. doi:10.1093/tas/txz113.
Soto, J. A., M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, J. C. Woodworth, J. M. DeRouchey, R. D. Goodband, and F. Wu. 2019b. Optimal dietary standardized
ileal digestible lysine and crude protein concentration for growth and carcass performance in finishing pigs weighing greater than
100 kg. J. Anim. Sci. 97:1701–1711. doi:10.1093/jas/skz052.
Speight, S. M., M. J. Estienne, A. F. Harper, R. J. Crawford, J. W. Knight, and B. D. Whitaker. 2012. Effects of dietary supplementation
with an organic source of selenium on characteristics of semen quality and in vitro fertility in boars. J. Anim. Sci. 90:761–770.
doi:10.2527/jas.2011-3874.
Stein, H. H., L. A. Merriman, and J. C. González-Vega. 2016. Establishing a digestible calcium requirement for pigs. In: C. L. Walk, I.
Kühn, H. H. Stein, M. T. Kidd, and M. Rodehutscord, editors. Phytate destruction - consequences for precision animal nutrition.
Wageningen Academic Publishers. p. 207–216. doi:10.3920/978-90-8686-836-0_13.
Stevermer, E. J., M. F. Kovacs, W. G. Hoekstra, and H. L. Self. 1961. Effect of Feed Intake on Semen Characteristics and Reproductive
Performance of Mature Boars. J. Anim. Sci. 20:858–865. doi:10.2527/jas1961.204858x.
Stähr, B., L. Rothe, and D. Waberski. 2009. Empfehlungen zur Gewinnung, Aufbereitung, Lagerung und Transport von Ebersperma
Handbuch für Besamungsstationen. Diss. med. vet. Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover
Stewart, K. R., C. L. Bradley, P. Wilcock, F. Domingues, M. Kleve-Feld, and J. Hundley. 2016. Superdosing phytase fed to mature boars
improves semen concentration and reproductive efficiency. J. Anim. Sci. 94:109. doi:10.2527/msasas2016-231.
Sulabo, R. C., J. Y. Jacela, M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, R. D. Goodband, J. M. DeRouchey, and J. L. Nelssen. 2010. Effects of lactation feed
intake and creep feeding on sow and piglet performance. J. Anim. Sci. 88:3145–3153. doi:10.2527/jas.2009-2131.
Sutkevičienė, N., B. Bakutis, A. Banys, B. Karvelienė, A. Rutkauskas, J. Sabeckienė, and H. Žilinskas. 2009. The effect of the estrogenic
mycotoxin zearalenone on boar reproductive potencial and the dynamic of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase
levels in the boar blood serum. Vet. ir Zootech. 46:73–77.
Thomas, L. L., M. D. Tokach, J. C. Woodworth, R. D. Goodband, S. S. Dritz, and J. M. DeRouchey. 2018. Effects of Added Soybean
Isoflavones in Low Crude Protein Diets on Growth and Carcass Performance of Finishing Pigs from 260 to 320 lb. Kansas Agric. Exp.
Stn. Res. Reports. 4. doi:10.4148/2378-5977.7684.
Thompson, R., B. Knopf, C. M. Vier, L. Ning, R. C. Wayne, and and U.A.D. Orlando. 2020. Evaluation of Different Vitamin Concentrations
in a Commercial Wean-to-Finish Program. J. Anim. Sci. 98:170-171. doi:10.1093/jas/skaa054.302.
Tokach, M. D., and R. D. Goodband. 2007. Feeding Boars for Optimum Sperm Production. In: Proceedings of Swine Reproduction
Preconference Symposium at 2007 AASV Annual Meeting.
Tokach, M. D., and M. A. D. Gonçalves. 2014. Impact of nutrition and other production factors on carcass quality in pigs. In: Proc. Latin
America Pork Expo. Foz do Iguacu, Brazil. p. 9.
Tokach, M. D., M. B. Menegat, K. M. Gourley, and R. D. Goodband. 2019. Review: Nutrient requirements of the modern high-producing
lactating sow, with an emphasis on amino acid requirements. Animal. 13:2967–2977. doi:10.1017/S1751731119001253.

T-7
Totafurno, A. D., L. A. Huber, W. D. Mansilla, D. Wey, I. B. Mandell, and C. F. M. De Lange. 2019. The effects of a temporary lysine
restriction in newly weaned pigs on growth performance and body composition. J. Anim. Sci. 97:3859–3870. doi:10.1093/jas/
skz196.
Touchette, K., R. Hinson, and M. Goncalves. 2018. 49 Determination of Sid Val: Lys Requirements in Lactating Sows. J. Anim. Sci.
96:26–27. doi:10.1093/jas/sky073.047.
Tous, N., R. Lizardo, B. Vilà, M. Gispert, M. Font-i-Furnols, and E. Esteve-Garcia. 2014. Effect of reducing dietary protein and lysine on
growth performance, carcass characteristics, intramuscular fat, and fatty acid profile of finishing barrows. J. Anim. Sci. 92:129–140.
doi:10.2527/jas.2012-6222.
Tuffo, L. Del, M. D. Tokach, C. K. Jones, J. M. DeRouchey, and R. D. Goodband. 2019. Evaluation of different vitamin concentrations on
grow-finish pig growth and carcass characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 97:108–109. doi:10.1093/jas/skz122.192.
Underwood, E. J., and F. Suttle. 1999. The Mineral Nutrition of Livestock,. 3rd ed. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Vier, C. M., S. S. Dritz, F. Wu, M. D. Tokach, J. M. DeRouchey, R. D. Goodband, M. A. D. Gonçalves, U. A. D. Orlando, and J. C. Woodworth.
2019a. Effects of standardized total tract digestible phosphorus on growth performance of 11- to 23-kg pigs fed diets with or
without phytase. J. Anim. Sci. 97:4032–4040. doi:10.1093/jas/skz255.
Vier, C. M., S. S. Dritz, F. Wu, M. D. Tokach, J. M. DeRouchey, R. D. Goodband, M. A. D. Gonçalves, U. A. D. Orlando, K. Chitakasempornkul,
and J. C. Woodworth. 2019b. Standardized total tract digestible phosphorus requirement of 24-to 130-kg pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 97:4023–
4031. doi:10.1093/jas/skz256.
Vier, C. M., S. S. Dritz, M. D. Tokach, J. M. DeRouchey, R. D. Goodband, M. A. D. Gonçalves, U. A. D. Orlando, J. R. Bergstrom, and J. C.
Woodworth. 2019c. Calcium to phosphorus ratio requirement of 26-to 127-kg pigs fed diets with or without phytase. J. Anim. Sci.
97:4041–4052. doi:10.1093/jas/skz257.
Wähner, M., M. Geyer, G. Hallfarth, and U. Hühn. 2004. Der einfluss von zulagen einer vitaminemulsion mit L-Carnitin auf die
spermaeigenschaften von besamungsebern. Zuchtungskunde. 76:196–207.
Whang, K. Y., F. K. McKeith, S. W. Kim, and R. A. Easter. 2000. Effect of starter feeding program on growth performance and gains of body
components from weaning to market weight in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 78:2885–2895. doi:10.2527/2000.78112885x.
Whitney, M. H., and C. Masker. 2010. Replacement gilt and boar nutrient recommendations and feeding management. Pork Information
Gateway. Available from: https://porkgateway.org/resource/replacement-gilt-and-boar-nutrient-recommendations-and-feeding-
management/.
Wolter, B. F., M. Ellis, B. P. Corrigan, J. M. DeDecker, S. E. Curtis, E. N. Parr, and D. M. Webel. 2003. Impact of early postweaning growth
rate as affected by diet complexity and space allocation on subsequent growth performance of pigsin a wean-to-finish production
system. J. Anim. Sci. 81:353–359. doi:10.2527/2003.812353x.
Wu, F., M. D. Tokach, S. S. Dritz, J. C. Woodworth, J. M. DeRouchey, R. D. Goodband, M. A. D. Gonçalves, and J. R. Bergstrom. 2018.
Effects of dietary calcium to phosphorus ratio and addition of phytase on growth performance of nursery pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 96:1825–
1837. doi:10.1093/jas/sky101.
Xue, L., X. Piao, D. Li, P. Li, R. Zhang, S. Kim, and B. Dong. 2012. The effect of the ratio of standardized ileal digestible lysine to
metabolizable energy on growth performance, blood metabolites and hormones of lactating sows. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 3:11.
doi:10.1186/2049-1891-3-11.
Yang, H., J. E. Pettigrew, L. J. Johnston, G. C. Shurson, and R. D. Walker. 2000. Lactational and subsequent reproductive responses of
lactating sows to dietary lysine (protein) concentration. J. Anim. Sci. 78:348–357. doi:10.2527/2000.782348x.

Section U
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the following people for their contributions through numerous research trials and their time spent in
reviewing the PIC® Nutrient Specification Manual:
Alexandre Gomes Rocha (Aurora Alimentos, Brazil)

Annie Clark (Schwartz farms, USA)
Fangzhou Arkin Wu (Pipestone, USA/China)
Carlos Kippert Jr. (BRF, Brazil)
Fernando Bortolozzo (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil)
Gonzalo Castro (Consultant, Chile)
Jose Soto (Ajinomoto, USA)
Keysuke Muramatsu (JBS Foods, Brazil)
Kyle Coble (JBS Foods, USA)
Laura Greiner (Iowa State University, USA)
Malachy Young (Gowans, Canada)
Melissa Hannas (Federal University of Viçosa, Brazil)
Merlin Lindemann (University of Kentucky, USA)
Mick Hazzledine (AB Agri, UK)
Mike Tokach (Kansas State University, USA)
Pau Aymerich (Vall Companys, Spain)
Rommel Sulabo (University of the Phillipines, Phillipines)
Simon Turner (Roslin Institute, UK)
Sung Woo Kim (North Carolina State University, USA)
Tom Crenshaw (University of Wisconsin, USA)
Wenye Zhang (Shiyang Group, China)
Additionally, we want to express appreciation to Leopoldo Almeida (PhD student, Federal University of Paraná, Brazil) for
organizing and cross-checking all the references.

U-1
PIC North America
100 Bluegrass Commons Blvd. | Suite 2200 | Hendersonville, TN 37075 | 800-325-3398 | www.PIC.com
PIC® 2021 | Printed 2021

PIC Nutrition Manual English Imperial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

PIC Nutrition Manual English Imperial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PIC Nutrition Manual English Imperial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PIC® NUTRITION AND FEEDING

1. Summarizes our logic and principles of diet formulation

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

The Economic Implications of Fixed Time vs. Fixed Weight

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Strategies for Diet Formulation

• Maximizing animal performance

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Formulating for Maximum Performance

Formulating for Minimum Cost

Feed cost per lb gain = (F/G x $ per lb of feed)

Formulating for Maximum Profit

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Scenario 1 (Sc1; no added fat)

Scenario 2 (Sc2; 3% added fat)

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

• Live pig price = $0.55/lb

Income Over Total Cost

• Carcass yield = 74%

Calculations on a live basis:

IOTCL (Sc1) = [$0.55 x (50+201.6)] - ($58.71+$14.56+$55.0) = $10.11 per pig

Calculations on a carcass basis:

IOTCC (Sc1) = [$0.75 x (50+201.6) x 0.74] - ($58.71+$14.56+$55.0) = $11.368 per pig

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Seasonal Diet Formulation

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Figure B1. Utilization of Dietary Energy by Pigs

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Ingredient Energy Value Importance

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Table B3. Effects of Energy Concentration on Growth Performance of Grow-Finish Pigsa

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Economic Model for Optimum Energy Concentration

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Expressing Amino Acid Requirements

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Amino Acid Ratios

Grow-Finish Pig Amino Acids Requirement Recent Advances

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Biological and Economic Models for Optimum SID Lys Concentration

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Macrominerals are involved in many processes ranging from structural framework of

Phosphorus and calcium can be expressed in many ways:

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

STTD P for Developing Gilts = 1.08 × STTD P:Mcal of Gilts

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Sodium and Chloride Requirements

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

This chapter will discuss minerals and vitamins’ supplementation focusing on

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

Imperial Version 2021.03.04

1. NRC 2012: added vitamin concentrations identical to NRC (2012) recommendations;

Imperial Version 2021.03.04